'Mother,' 'Father' Changing to 'Parent One,' 'Parent Two' on Passport Applications

[Gammelpreusse]

Originally Posted by Schroeder

I think you are leaving out too much here.
The whole thing is also about the bonuses that married couples get (tax cuts etc.). They get them to make it easier for them to raise children. Why should a homosexual couple (or a childless hetero couple regardless of marriage) get those benefits?
However I think that homosexuals should be able to marry as this also regulates many more things like the right to inhere things from a deceased partner, or the right to get financial support from a partner. Just those family raising benefits should not be granted (but they shouldn't be granted to childless couples either).

First, some sanity appears to have found the way back into here.

In regards to your post, the problem in this is that
a) all those benefits have not resulted in any success in regards to child numbers and
b) that married couples without any will to have children are getting the same kind of benefits. And argueable there are far more married couples out there without children then potential homosexual couples. As such that argument does not make sense unless you reduce the benefits to just those that really have children. But as it is already obvious these benefits are not coming with success, this is a mood point anyways. It's a typical example of a"how the perfect world should work" versus "how the world actually works" debate with only focusing on certain points without checking the basics of these points. The mere potential of married heterosexual couples having children does not work, as potential does not equal reality.

That means, instead of focusing the debate in a constructive manner in how to increase child birth it is becoming a destructive debate in which basic human longings are swept aside for a "greater" goal, even if this goal is based on morally dubious and socially shaky fundamentals. Also, it involves the attitude that the individual in his aspirations and way of life is put under the collective good for everybody. In this human lives and emotions are reduced to maths and numbers, quite similar to what we have seen in the economy in the last decades. It also runs against the ideals of humanism, which is at the core of the Federal Republic of Germany and majorly responsible for the success and respect this country enjoys these days.

My problem with this debate is that it puts people not only under pressure to not work against society or being punished (live and let live), but actually goes a step further in that they have to work for society to not get punished. This is easily extendable to other groups and life styles (and already is in regards to the Muslim debate, in which the current tone is not about how to improve the obviously problematic situation of integration, but focused on rants and open hostility towards Muslim groups as a danger to society) and crosses a line that puts society on a course of conflict and may result in violence and oppression when run through all it's logical conclusions. A popular catch phrase could be appropriate here; "the road to hell is plastered with good intentions".

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Gammelpreusse

That means, instead of focusing the debate in a constructive manner in how to increase child birth

Career interests and gender equality policies have led to the decline of desire in people to have children. Many just see it as uncomfortable, as unproductive to their hobbies and time intersts. Egoism collides with founding a family. Our cult of individualism of actio and being entertained and parytying, our ideals of how tobe the ideal profi in the office, tights crfiterions for beign "perfect", all this collides with founding a family. And of course one must be able to afford it raising children. I am strictly against producing babies - and let the community pay for them completely.

Our cultural environment and climate is such, that the above descriptions get fostered, at the cost of the recognition of the achievements somebody gains by founding a family. The socail status, the social respect for families thus has fallen in the past decades. Itnow leads to exrteemes where some people even consider it to be a discrmination of female gender and an offense of women, to clal them "mother". They should be seen as equal, successful career-competioners instead. This would illustrate that the political agenda of gender equality and that women can be strong and successful in their job. this is the wanted image of women these days. Even b etter nwhen at the samer time they meet the standards produced by insutry and avertisement: not only being strong andf successful, but also being independent (anti-family that is by nature), beautiful, sexy, not prey of men but making men the prey.

I agree that only material motivations alonhe will not make women get more babies. They need the possibility of uniting job and family life. Couples also mujst see or feel, must be raised in the awareness thnat family life gets more respected and prioritised again, and that it gets appreicated by community. It is a social-motivational- cultural feedback. Paying more Kindergeld is not eniough, a reshifting of values that put back more importance ion families and children is necessary. What has been destroyed in families' repuatation and social recongition, must be restored.

And that you cannot acchieve by lowering their status as it is socially perceived, even more - by lifiutng non-families to their status and giving others the same ammount of recognition and feedback on their importance. This is why I am so angry about reltiviisng families'S status and recognition - by claiming the sdame recogntiiona nd statzus for homosexual couples. And once again my question then: why not the same status and recogntiion being given to singles? Nobody has answered me this question now what makes homo relations so much more valuable and recognisable then singles although their meaning and importance for the social community and its future is identical. Am I of less worth than homsexuals living in "marriage"...?

No matter how I look at it: financially. Demographically. Historically. Morally. In communal interest and significance. I see not a single reason why gays/lesbioans should be undertstood as marrying the same way like heterosexual copuples do, and how the term "marriage" is meant. I only see reasons speaking against it. I focus on just the demographical and tax-future-finance-aspect of it, I do not even argue here with morals and history. But even if one would argue with morals and history, I would just see reasons against it. While no damage gets done by refusing the equality of hetero and homo marriages, and is no discrmination at all. At least as long as we can agree that it is no discrimination of white people that they are not black-skinned.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I am surprised to see such a monumental simplification from you.

Threat from the 3rd world hordes: would only be an iossue if actually hugh hordes of 3rd world babies get transported to the 1st world, or huge ammounts of people from there moving here, outbreeding the natives in the 1st world. With regard to certain miogration grouips, I pointed out that indeed their reproucftion rates are 2, 3 and 4 times higher than that of native social upper classes that are not even maintaining their population size. However, my argument is not to to defend against the hordes of the 3rd world, but to defend against a further social minimising of families, by relativising it'S special sdtauzs byx giving the same sttaus to homosexual couples. I also saids that homosexual people have all freedom to live tigether, and that now much of the fight is about gaining tax status of families (to save money that way that families would spend on children, while homosexuals keep it for themnselves). Before we can hope to make the needed middle and upper social classes getting more abies so that we have the sufficient number of tax payers int he future (our biug problem unfolding currently), family and marriage needs to become perceived as a desirable, honourable endavour again. And this can only be achieved not by paqying boni, but by fostering a cultural climate that educates people to pay more respect to the institution of family, and founding a family, again. This is the main reason why I am strictly againmst relativisng and by that: reducing the socially payed respect to families even more, by giving others who do not contribute to the community'S interest like kid-raising families do. So I am against treating homo couples and single mlike me the same way hetrereo couples get treated. I want hetero couples to be given a special recognition and status that I neither claim for singles like myself, nor accept for homo couples.

Third world issues have nothing to do with it. It effects the financial and demographic developement in our countries only in so far as migration is concerned, and different migration subgroup form difefrent social classes that differ in their reproduzction rate, chnaging the overall balance between netto payers and netto receivers agfainst the first and in faovur of the latter. This is what the statistics of federal offices in Germany indicate since long time. This is what controversial Thilo Sarrazin's book is about: financial developement of tax income and tax spendings, and statistics of demographics.

We need less babies from social classes being netto receivers, and we need more babies form social classes being netto payers. From this perspective it'S avbout tax payers, not individual people's romance. Individual'S love stories are of no concern for the community, nor should it stick it'S nose into private people's business. Statistics and demographic trends effect all community, and make statements over all people, or a "mean/avergae" citizen. They do not describe or match individuals, but the total community. That is their very purpose!

Tax-wise, population levels in the third world are of no interest for us in our nations over here. How to pay our future bills - that is what our politics must focus on. They fail since long, spend more than can be affored, did not form rsserves for bad timers, but accumulated current and even potential future debts (the pensions that will be needed to pay in ther future when current employees leave the job due to their age).

So in other words, it's about class, not race. Very well, I shall ammend my comment: Homosexual marriage reduces the amount of stock available to the more desireable societal classes. You can call it oversimplification if you prefer, but that is the kernel at the heart of your argument.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

So in other words, it's about class, not race. Very well, I shall ammend my comment: Homosexual marriage reduces the amount of stock available to the more desireable societal classes. You can call it oversimplification if you prefer, but that is the kernel at the heart of your argument.

Amongst other factors, it also is about the different birth rates in different social classes.

It is about the general decline in recognition and social appreciation for families in general. You may have noticed that amoingst migration subcommunities you see a correlation between not only between social class and birth rate/education success/job-career success, but also between the cultural background of said migration subcommunity, and birth rate. Those having more babies than us Westerners ver yoften come from countries where - for whatever the reason - family and children are held in higher appreciation, than in our countries in modern time. The more successful in integration these women become, the more they tend to adopt to our values and social models and standards and demand Western rights for themselves that maybe in their home cultures they had been excluded from* - and the less children they become. This correlation is also statiscially proven, I have read it repeatedly both about Europe as well as America.


* this can indicate that in a society they have been supressed and limited to the m other role, but it must not be - nor always is - like that.

[Takeda Shingen]

Sky, I like you, but if you don't want to own it, then don't say it.

[Skybird]

I mean what I say and I say what I mean (ignoring many typos and the occasional lingual mishap I sometimes fall victim to with this foreign language). Either you - and others - summarise or adress me correctly in word and/or context, or you don't.

[Gammelpreusse]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I agree that only material motivations alonhe will not make women get more babies. They need the possibility of uniting job and family life.

That is the essence of it. Everything else is just personal feeling on your side and pretty much irrelevant to solution findings. I personally could not care less if some women consider it offensive to be called mother or not, that is their own feeling and attitude and if they want to feel that way, their loss, but let's not make this your or my problem, because it is not. Nevertheless, people want to be together, they want social security and they want people to rely on. Those are basic instincts completely independent of any given social norms or institutions. Marriage developed out of this drive, it was not the other way around.

Besides, we need women in jobs. Germany can't allow women the luxury to sit around at home all day and paying them for that, thus taking way half the populations work force. And as they want to get out and live actual lifes, even better, there comes together what needs to come together.

But again, to give a potential solution to this problem and others:
Provide enough free Kindertagesstätten and all day schools, and you have solved huge problems systematic to this society with one swoop without having to target minority groups as scapegoats to self inflicted problems. It also removes huge parts of the problem of weak social classes education and immigrant integration. Just going back and trying to strengthen families 19th century style in the modern environment of work, social state security and entertainment is like fighting WW1 with Napoleon style tactics.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The concept of a marriage for some people seem to be absolutely arbitrarily. Everybnody can marry whomever he/she wants. But that concept of the term is questionable, it is not that arbitrary. And no religion supports that concept either, neither does history. So it is not just stubbornly sticking to the dictionary, Steve.

I wouldn't have thought that you would use any religion to back up your arguments. Is the concept arbitrary? Is it not? I don't know. As I've said, you have some points.

Others like me and Aramike point out that the term "1 man, 1 woman" is an integral, inherent part of the term's meaning, definition, essence and nature, in most cultures and era and religions. Historically. Religiously. Regarding the biological possible consequences. Regarding the vital interest of the community. I also point out the connection to "family" where children are prodcued from within the natural setting of that marriage/living together, wiothiut need from foreigners, withiut need from laboratories, surgeons, and adoptation of "foreign flesh and blood".

Foreigners? I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.

Homo/lesbian couples already can live together, and stay together for all life. And they already can register their partnership, and introduce their partner as "their partner" to other people. They are perfectly free to do so. What the hell is the problem? The still shove it down our throats that they are being discmrinated that way, many of them. But they want "marriage" in my above understanding of the term, which is well founded in history and culture. So what they a actually do shove down our throats by doing so is their complaint that they are not heterosexual couples. If that is not ironic.

I understand your point here, but I still don't see how this could cause any harm, and for me that's the whole point of having laws.

Many pages in this thread but nobody has given a reasonable answer to that. Nobody. And you wonder why I stick to my assessment, and accuse me for doing so, Steve!? I chnage my opinions, occasionally, sometimes over long priods of time. But I demand argument that convinces me and that makes sense to me. Or reality showing me wrong.

No, I don't accuse you for sticking to your guns. Your points are good ones. I'm not trying to convince you. I'm not trying to convince anyone. For my part, I've only said why I personally don't oppose this.

The point is - you guys have no point that forces me to take it into account as something justifiable.

The truth is, as I said, I'm not trying to convince or change you. I'm just stating my feelings on the subject.

Terms have meanings. But your concept of unlimited freedom once again leads you so far as that you even take the freedom to redefine totally new meanings to terms, Steve, and then we are again at this older debate of giving freedom, and that you even will it to those who expiclicitly abuse freedom to destroy freedom while you deny it at the same time - the point where you hopelessly entangled yourself last time.

Now you're reaching. I only "hopelessly entangled" myself in your imaginings. That argument was never resolved, and you never proved anything. You once again accuse me of being willing to guarantee freedom to those who would destroy it, and I once again accuse you of wanting to deny freedom in the name of preserving it. Again, on that point, I see you as the enemy of freedom. And you ignored my constant claim that all I ever defended was the right to erect a building. Bringing that up again and saying I "entangled" myself is the same as shouting "I won that time", when you did no such thing.

I sometimes think you are so free that you even stand in your own way, so free you are.

And I sometimes think that you are so convinced of your own "rightness" that you feel you can tell everyone what's good for them.

I wonder if you ever get ground under the feet and contact reality that way. To me this thinking sometimes sounds like somebody who has no contact to or no roots in reality, and dwells in absolute ideals instead. And since you ust redefione "marriage" and simply skip over board the long since delivered understanding of it, I wonder if we even speak the same language anymore. You use the same words like I do, but you do not mean what they mean, but take the freedom to mean just anything by them.

To that I say that you don't know me at all. You read into my words what you want to, and ignore anything I say to the contrary. Once again, I have said that your points are valid, and I've explained as carefully as I can why I feel the way I do, but you drop right back into the old discussion of what you think my concept of freedom is. You're arguing against what you want me to have said, not what I actually said.

It's is not about keeping certain segments of society in their "place". It is about keeping the meaning of terms and not allowing to compromise the institution of "family" by relativising it - through raising other elements to it's protected special status, neutralising its own specially recognised status that way.

You say that, and I don't believe it. I'm not accusing you, I'm merely expressing my distrust of anyone's motives in general. It looks to me like there's more here than meets the eye, and as always I could easily be wrong.

And that is not more discrimination of gay and lesbian people as it it discrimination of me. A single, non-family man. I can live with that. And I insist that they live it it, too. Not for my own sake, but for the sake of our community's vital future interest, and for the sake of families.

And to my mind it's only discrimination if it actually causes harm, and again I don't see how any hetero person, or the "institution" of marriage would be harmed by this.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Gammelpreusse

That is the essence of it. Everything else is just personal feeling on your side and pretty much irrelevant to solution findings. I personally could not care less if some women consider it offensive to be called mother or not, that is their own feeling and attitude and if they want to feel that way, their loss, but let's not make this your or my problem, because it is not. Nevertheless, people want to be together, they want social security and they want people to rely on. Those are basic instincts completely independent of any given social norms or institutions. Marriage developed out of this drive, it was not the other way around.

Besides, we need women in jobs. Germany can't allow women the luxury to sit around at home all day and paying them for that, thus taking way half the populations work force. And as they want to get out and live actual lifes, even better, there comes together what needs to come together.

But again, to give a potential solution to this problem and others:
Provide enough free Kindertagesstätten and all day schools, and you have solved huge problems systematic to this society with one swoop without having to target minority groups as scapegoats to self inflicted problems. It also removes huge parts of the problem of weak social classes education and immigrant integration. Just going back and trying to strengthen families 19th century style in the modern environment of work, social state security and entertainment is like fighting WW1 with Napoleon style tactics.

That is exactly what I am not for. Kinderhorte from 2nd year of age on. Allday-schools. Gesamtschulen. I have had and still have several teacher sin my family and social circles of frie3nds, and all of them leave no good hair on Gesamtschulen, and "modern" school pedagogics à la Allemagne. Tasking children out of families from early childhood on only exposes them to the social conformity machinery mainly of the left, sicnbe it is mainly the left influencing the pedagogics in Germany: anti-authoritarian to the max, all-forgiving, and by rules of PISA and the Kultusministerkonferenz: lowering performance standards to allow better notes for lower performance and more social engineering experiments. No, all this crap I do not want. I want a stronger reorientation in schools to the Leistungsprinzip again, I want less tolerance for foreign cultural demands, but more insisting on that ion order to get good grades, you have to e3arn them, and if your social background of a foreign culture is hindering you in that, then you better pack your things and leave.

And when I said that "families" need to gain more social recognition again, then I do mean intat families by that, encouraging women to be mothers in the first, and job competitors proving the3 political demand tzo demonstrate gender equality only in the secongs. Because running a family life is a tough job already. When I say they should have the chnace to unite job and family, then I do not mean that family should be cut short by poasrking kids in instituitions, but to raise an awarene3ss in society and the job world that a mother primarily and for some time - is a mother, and is to be r3esp3ected and supported in that role. Only parents available to a child can support it when there are difficulties at school and in learning. Fathers that are never at home and mothers spending just some time on the fly with their children, are not it. I do not want the traditional limitation of women to household and children like in the 50s, but more understanding and flexibility from economy and industry so that they can cut shorter their time at work, to spend it outside their employment.

Whjat you express, is a further dec onstruction of "family" and the social recongition, appreciation and respect for it, you indicate clearly: job first. I am exactly the other way around: more priority for family life, more attractiveness beeing raised for it, more respectability.

A spirit of socialist collectives is not what I have on mind.

And this, probabkly not many women indeed feel offended when being called "mother". But there is a certain political movement, an agenda that is not just limited to the left, but embraces conservatrives like von der Leyen as well as activists like Alie Schwarzer, that want to make society thinking that a women that is not fully competitive with men in jobs, is something like a halved human being onyl. And the seed has carried rich fruits, and spreads evben further so far. As long as we cannot make women of middle and upper class, with higher access to educational chances and job chances for their children, change their mind to make them think that for not too few years children are prioprity over job and that this is something worth it and adorable, we will contne to see low class families having many children, and upper class families not havcing sufficient children, which means our society will be less and lesser able to survie the growing gap between its spendings for social issues and pensions of the many people growing old, and the shrinking tax income priduced by the few and fewer people who are young. Takeda is niot wrong in what he summarises ma with. But he is not complete in his summary of my arguments. But yes, having sufficiently potent future taxpayers is what it is about.

On recruiting migrants for jobs, it is an interesting argument that I have read some weeks ago: that stripping other ****ries, espoecially emerging powers that still are considered to be3 weak and inferior, of their needed specialists and well-trained experts, is an expoitation at the cost of these countries that compare to the industrial and econonmic exploitation during the age of imperialism and colonialism. These countries cannot grow any better if there people are enocuraged to move to the West - because then no brain is left to develope their home countries.

Germany, on the other ahnd, have to learn to accept lower works for themselves again, too, instead of leaving it to the Gastarbeiter.

Finally the German economy must become more indepedent from exports and low wage policies. We too have an immense structural problem, it just is well hidden becasue we did so well during the past crisis. Just the longterm costs for this welldoing - so far are not beeing realised or reflected.Like America we have immnse structural problems, just of a very< different kind than America - but as threatening and severe. And an endless continuation of low wage policies will not solve the problem, but critically sharpen it. EU and Euro not even mentioned here.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Foreigners? I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.

Leasing mothers as "breeders". Third party inseminators. Laboratory assistants.

I understand your point here, but I still don't see how this could cause any harm, and for me that's the whole point of having laws.

Not only is the term "marriage" not so arbitrary that it can just include homosexual partnerhips, but raising these to the same level of social acceptance and recognition as well as tax benefits and financial revenues obviously relativises this status given and accepted and ruled for families. Plus it is damage in being a discrimination against singles. The special status of one group is only special as long as it is exycluded from other groups.

I added histgorxy and relgion only for the sake of completeness, to show that also in history acceptance of gay/lesbian marriages as equal are an exception from the rule, and that the big world relgions also speak out against it. While I do not much argue with them or moral issues, I would have these two things on my side as well, if I would.

Now you're reaching. I only "hopelessly entangled" myself in your imaginings. That argument was never resolved, and you never proved anything. You once again accuse me of being willing to guarantee freedom to those who would destroy it, and I once again accuse you of wanting to deny freedom in the name of preserving it.

The argument was resolved - by logic that you were unable to counter. Shall we return to that dilemma as expressed by Popper? This was not an issue of whether the glass is half full or half empty. It was an issue of whether to sacrifice yourself in order to leave the other the freedom to destroy freedom, and not hinder him - since that would be limiting "freedom". That simple. In other words, it was whether or not to commit suicide.

And I sometimes think that you are so convinced of your own "rightness" that you feel you can tell everyone what's good for them.

You may see it like that. But I do not accept everything to be arbitrary in defintion of terms, and logical consusions that are not being shown wrong I refuse to give up. I try to form my opinions in that way so that later on I need to correct them as little and as rarely as possible. Somwetimes that is not possible, I feel. Then I refuse to form an opinion on something and to take a stand and defend it. But if I arrange my thoughts in such a way so that I do not see them often in need to correct them, I take that as a compliment for my thinking.

You may disagree on my arguments. But what started me to jump on you when you reduced evertyhing that was said in this thread by me and others to "juist moral judgements", because that shows me that you ignored competely what indeed was said - by me in this case. And if indeed I have laid out many arguments and points that totally excluded morals, then I rate this as false talking about me and putting something in my mouth, and simplifying it and distoritng it. And after ten years in this forum I am a bit allergic against that. I assume in your favour that you maybe were not thinking about me in the main when writing that reply, however much of what your communication partner at that time had written also was not "just moral judgements".

[Skybird]

Leaving it here, third attempt.

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Leaving it here, third attempt.

Are you sure,

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The argument was resolved - by logic that you were unable to counter. Shall we return to that dilemma as expressed by Popper? This was not an issue of whether the glass is half full or half empty. It was an issue of whether to sacrifice yourself in order to leave the other the freedom to destroy freedom, and not hinder him - since that would be limiting "freedom". That simple. In other words, it was whether or not to commit suicide.

Thanks. That's the best laugh I've had all week. Your selective memory is a wonderful thing.

I entered that argument with a simple contention: that unless some existing law was broken the muslims had a right to build a mosque anywhere the zoning commission said they could. You turned it into a diatribe on Islam in general, using Popper to prove points that had nothing to do with that thread. Basically you shifted the argument to your pet point, started in on my "absolutism", and when I explained that my statement wasn't a stopping, but a starting point, went into pages-long diatribes about how I wanted to hand over everything we hold dear to the great-evil-of-our-time.

First, you never proved that Islam is going to destroy us all. Second, you never noticed the times I agreed with you, but continued to railroad the discussion into what you wanted, not what was. Third, and most important, you never once discussed the thread topic, which was whether they should be allowed to build that mosque.

So yes, you won. You proved absolutely that you are a master at changing the topic to what you want it to be, creating a straw-man argument that you can then destroy and claim victory, and carefully not mentioning the original topic.

That sounds just like your new sig.

[Sailor Steve]

I chose to address this separately.

Originally Posted by Skybird

You may disagree on my arguments. But what started me to jump on you when you reduced evertyhing that was said in this thread by me and others to "juist moral judgements", because that shows me that you ignored competely what indeed was said - by me in this case.

That's true, and I apologize. I guess I am incapable of seeing how the arguments made can actually be the starting ground for opposition. It seems to me that there must be something deeper going on, and if there isn't then it's my fault for not recognizing it.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

First, you never proved that Islam is going to destroy us all.

Until Hitler attacked France as well (after Poland) it was also not proven that the Nazis planned to take on most of Europe and would destroy much of it and all of Germany, too. Still it would have been clever to shoot Hitler already in the mid-30s - after he had clued the world repeatedly for what kind of politics were to be expected from him.

Instead one waited, until it was too late. You follow that pattern on a similiar inhumane, totalitarian and supremacist, deeply racist ideology.

Islamic representatives time and again tell the world that they want to take over the West. Highest politicians, presidents, clerics let you know. Famous Islamic institgutions of highest rank, and univesity scholars tell their followers what to do regarding the West. It is also a message form the Quran. Can'T you just take people and ideologies by their words for which they are fully responsible, even more so when history has shown them right, right, right? And when the basic ideology on which they found, call for it? What makes you know Islam better than Islam knows itself?

Instead you now defend the freedom of speech of that Nazism that has costed your country tens of thousands of dead and that has caused one of the biggest crimes in man's history and the biggest mass killing known. For the same cinfused reason you defend other ultraextremist organisation'S freedom of speech as well, the KKK, and more. If that Nazism still is not enough to let you limit its freedoms, then it is clear that not only you will not resist to Islam either, even more so since it is not striking openly, but by silent infiltration, demograophic chnage ovcer deacdes and brain washing.

Those not learning from history, are doomed to repeat it.

Second, you never noticed the times I agreed with you, but continued to railroad the discussion into what you wanted, not what was. Third, and most important, you never once discussed the thread topic, which was whether they should be allowed to build that mosque.

At that time it was about your suicidal concept of what freedom is, no matter the topic. And you entangled yourself in an inner contradiction that was illustrated by the so-called dilemma of freedom as it was summarised by Popper. Until you cannot solve that dilemma, you have no argument to defend your view. And that is the problem that you simply bypass by "I don'T know, but nevertheless I want freedom for everybody, even for those that want to destroy it". Sorry, that is neither to be taken serious, nor is it to be described as anything different than "naive" and "suicidal". And that's why Popper had a go at it in "The Open Society": it does damage to society.

You have plenty of arguments why not to defend freedom against somebody telling you in your face he wants to destroy it, and acting like that. But I have not heared an argument why you would want to defend it even if that means to reject that somebody telling you he wants to destroy it. Instead you keep on telling me, even here, that you always take into account that you could be wrong - but that does not lead you to any consequences. To me it sounds like an alibi to actually not defend freedom where you say you are for freedom. And the circle closes and we are back to that freedom dilemma that you still have not solved, although it is a fundamental problem, and in your argument: illustrates a hopeless inner contradiction.

Sorry Steve, but I refuse to take that serious. You are simply wrong here. You can call me a professor or lecturer as much as you want - on this issue of total freedom you are wrong. Many people think like you think. That'S why Popper'S freedom paradoxon has found entrance into literature, under the title of freedom paradoxon or freedom dilemma. Because it proves that you are wrong - by falsification. And that'S why I brought it up, and bring it up whenever this (very American) idea of "unlimited freedom" comes up. Because this understanding of freedom either leads to selfdestruction (by allowing the other to realise that), or anarchy and the law of the strongest - which also destroys freedom: that freedom that holds justice not for just the rich and the strong and the loudest yelling, but for all (that do not seek to destroy freedom).

Prevention, Steve - that is what it is about. Prevention instead of letting things break, and then see.