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

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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.

So you advocate assassinating everyone who may be a threat to your way of life? Again you show yourself to be more the enemy than they are. What if you're wrong about even one of them?

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.

Suicidal? As opposed to you, who would destroy what I stand for in the name of saving it? How are you different from them? You've never answered that one.

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".

And again you choose to ignore what I just repeated about starting points. I've said over and over that I know that no ideal is perfect, but you just waltz right around it and attack my "idealism" again. Once again you're creating your own argument and arguing with your straw man, while ignoring what I say about myself.

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.

And you've never addressed my argument that you are one of the ones who wants to destroy it.

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.

And there you go again, arguing with your straw man. How many times do I have to repeat that I know the ideal I believe in is just that? How many times do I have to repeat that it's a starting point for discussion, only to have you refuse to discuss, but rather insist that you have the only truth and if I don't listen and obey I'm dooming myself and everyone else?

Many people think like you think.

You apparently don't know what I think at all. I try to explain myself, you preach some more. I try to have an actual discussion, you give a lecture. I try to actually talk, you create more arguments, and preach a liitle more, and lecture a little more, then end by saying I've "entangled" myself. This is exactly the same thing you did on the old WW2 thread. This isn't about discussing the facts, or coming up with ideas. This is about you being right, and trying to force everyone else to fit into your mold.

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

And I agree. What we have a problem with is what form said prevention should take. You claim that all Islam is evil. What do you want to do? Lock them all up? Kick them all out of our respective nations? Kill them all? For all your dismissive lecturing, you never actually talk about it.

And, on top of it all, you've still never addressed the original point of that thread - the erection of a building. Too simple for you?

[razark]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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

That "unlimited freedom" thing? No one is suggesting it except you. The only ones I've seen mention "unlimited freedom" are you and Popper. Unlimited freedom would indeed lead to anarchy, etc. That's why our freedom is very much limited. My freedom to do what I want ends where it infringes on someone else's rights. Their freedom to do what they want ends when it infringes on mine. As has been stated elsewhere, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Building a mosque does nothing to infringe on your freedom. Not allowing someone to build on land they own does infringe on their right.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

So you advocate assassinating everyone who may be a threat to your way of life? Again you show yourself to be more the enemy than they are. What if you're wrong about even one of them?

Thw writing was on the wall many years before 1939. In case of Islam, the writing is on the wall sionce more than a thousand years. You could have known what Hitler was about when reading "Mein Kampf" and observing the evcents in Germany and how germany chnaged. You can know what Islam is about when reading the Quran and the Hadith, or watching the fate of those places that got conquered (Islam represents the longest lasting most successful military and ideological conquest project known in all man's history). You can also know about Islam when looking at its history, and whether or not there is a huge discrpeance between Muhammad'S teachings and example, and the historic events caused by Islam.

You just do not want to know, Steve. Instead in a way you just claim indirectly to know Islam better than Islam reveals itself as by the word of Allah himself.

[quote]
Suicidal? As opposed to you, who would destroy what I stand for in the name of saving it? How are you different from them? You've never answered that one.[/quote)
And once again you do not get it. Yopu accuse me of destroying freedom when limiting it for the enmy so that he cannot destroiy freedom. Youz alternmtaive to mine: accepting destruction of freedom in the name of freedom.

When freedom has been destroyed, of what worth is your oh so noble intention then, eh? You will not start to defend it before it is too late and you have no more freedom left to defenmd freedom. See, that is what the paradoxon of freedom is about. Are you really so nut that you do not understand this?

And again you choose to ignore what I just repeated about starting points. I've said over and over that I know that no ideal is perfect, but you just waltz right around it and attack my "idealism" again. Once again you're creating your own argument and arguing with your straw man, while ignoring what I say about myself.

I waltz around your idealism? You have no idelaism, Steve. You have a suicidial illusion that creates the space and opportunity to see being destroyed what you claim to stand up for. That is not the same.

And you've never addressed my argument that you are one of the ones who wants to destroy it.

Oh , I have, a hundred times, it's just not what you want to hear, becasue you deal in absolutes. I refused a hundred times now that limiting some freedoms for the enemy of freedom in order to prevent him from successfully destrioying freedom saves more freedom and beenfits the freedom of those wisahing for freedom, but that leaving the other to destory freedom, totally destroys freedom. If you think that makes me the same like the one wishing to destroy freedom, then you are nuts, totally nuts. And you also have lost any grounds and reasons by which you could defend any wars that have been fought in attempts to overthrow tyranny.

Once again you hopelessly entangle yourself over this. What's wrong with you? You have been falsified by that freedom paradoxon/dilemma. If you can solve that dilemma, Steve, then youz would be the first man on Earth able to do that, and with s soltuion to that dilemma, I would will to convert to your thinking. Until then I call you suicidal, and nuts. Not to mention: unrealistical, nbecasue even in your country limitations of freedom for the benefit of freedom in general are everyday rule.

And there you go again, arguing with your straw man. How many times do I have to repeat that I know the ideal I believe in is just that? How many times do I have to repeat that it's a starting point for discussion, only to have you refuse to discuss, but rather insist that you have the only truth and if I don't listen and obey I'm dooming myself and everyone else?

So many times you need until you can show how your ideal could make a chnage in reality witrhout destroying freedom. Because only then me and others would be willing to listen to you. As long as you assist the desatroyers of freedom and call that freedom as an ideal, you are dangerous, and must be stopped, because if you would have your way, that wpould be the end of freedom - becasue there are so many people wanting to destroy it in the world.

Ideals - are not good enough, and intentions mean not much more. It is the deed and its consequence that decides the value of your choice - not how you meant it to be.

You apparently don't know what I think at all. I try to explain myself, you preach some more. I try to have an actual discussion, you give a lecture. I try to actually talk, you create more arguments, and preach a liitle more, and lecture a little more, then end by saying I've "entangled" myself. This is exactly the same thing you did on the old WW2 thread. This isn't about discussing the facts, or coming up with ideas. This is about you being right, and trying to force everyone else to fit into your mold.

I have understood you perfectly already back then. It's just that your thinkling is so self-contradictory that it does not only not convince at all, but instead even alarms me. I will not spare you to remind you of how self-contradictory you are in your understanding of freedom.

And I agree. What we have a problem with is what form said prevention should take. You claim that all Islam is evil. What do you want to do? Lock them all up? Kick them all out of our respective nations? Kill them all? For all your dismissive lecturing, you never actually talk about it.

I have, even in explicit reply to such demands. And if I recall it correctly you were one of those who nevertheless ignored to take note of that - and demanded me, as if nothing had happoened, that I should explain it. And now I should do it once again.

Well, that is a bit too far leading to do it ONCE again. I just say this again,m as IU have said many times before: most of Islamic values are incompatible with Western values (inclduing your freeedom, Steve, Islam would make short bloody process of what you understand freedom to be). Thus I do not believe in a modernisation of Islam , since that would elad to somethign that is not basing on God'S will anymore, and when it is not based on the Quran and in conformity with it, it cannot be "Islam". Any conception of integration has to take this into account, and it also is the reason why Muslim integration fails in every Wetsern nation where it is being tried since over 40 years. Islam does not want to integrate. Islam wants to make others submit instead.

My advise is the same as I have said many times now: migrants either fully integrate in their target nations, or thexy pack their things and leave, going back to where they came from. Inmtegration of Muslims means necessartily that they become apostates and leave Islam and and muhammed's Quran behind.

And, on top of it all, you've still never addressed the original point of that thread - the erection of a building. Too simple for you?

I have. I said it is a mockery, I linked to the terroiost background of the hatefiulled figure initiating it and that many of you Americans mistake to be a wellmeaning moderate where instead he preaches for the fall of America when he is outside your ciuntry, and I said that damn thing should not be built. Hiowever, the issue we started to fight over, was not that mosque, and dertailed threads are common ion this forum. We two engaged explicitly over your derailed concept of "absolute freedom or no freedom at all".

This is useless. Tell me when you can solve that freedom paradoxon, then you will find me listening fully interested. Else... well...

Actually what I always call the freedom paradoxon is more correctly entitled the tolerance paradoxon. But the meaning is the same.
To recall it:

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.

However, 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.

Show this to be wrong or show how you can practice your differing concept of freedom/tolerance without allowing the other to destroy your freedom when he abuses your tolerance. You whole idea of freedom stands or falls with your ability to do either the one or the other of these two. If you can, then we talk again. If you cannot, then I have nothing more to say.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You just do not want to know, Steve. Instead in a way you just claim indirectly to know Islam better than Islam reveals itself as by the word of Allah himself.

I claim nothing at all. I merely try to talk, and you continue to preach.

And once again you do not get it. Yopu accuse me of destroying freedom when limiting it for the enmy so that he cannot destroiy freedom. Youz alternmtaive to mine: accepting destruction of freedom in the name of freedom.

I don't get it. Please explain to my how you are not the enemy? You still won't answer that.

When freedom has been destroyed, of what worth is your oh so noble intention then, eh? You will not start to defend it before it is too late and you have no more freedom left to defenmd freedom. See, that is what the paradoxon of freedom is about. Are you really so nut that you do not understand this?

And again you dance with your straw man. You ignore me when I agree with you, and when I try to turn it into a real conversation you drop right back into your "I know what's best for you" games.

I waltz around your idealism? You have no idelaism, Steve. You have a suicidial illusion that creates the space and opportunity to see being destroyed what you claim to stand up for. That is not the same.

You don't know what I have. All you know is what you think I have. If I try to explain myself you just turn it right back to what you want it to be.

Oh , I have, a hundred times, it's just not what you want to hear, becasue you deal in absolutes.

Bull. You have never once answered my charge. Instead you jump right back into saying I don't understand the true enemy.

I refused a hundred times now that limiting some freedoms for the enemy of freedom in order to prevent him from successfully destrioying freedom saves more freedom and beenfits the freedom of those wisahing for freedom, but that leaving the other to destory freedom, totally destroys freedom. If you think that makes me the same like the one wishing to destroy freedom, then you are nuts, totally nuts. And you also have lost any grounds and reasons by which you could defend any wars that have been fought in attempts to overthrow tyranny.

And there you go again, back into the diatribe. Oh, wait, you did say that I was nuts, totally nuts. But you still won't talk to me.

Once again you hopelessly entangle yourself over this. What's wrong with you? You have been falsified by that freedom paradoxon/dilemma.

Only in your fixed, lock-step mind.

If you can solve that dilemma, Steve, then youz would be the first man on Earth able to do that, and with s soltuion to that dilemma, I would will to convert to your thinking. Until then I call you suicidal, and nuts. Not to mention: unrealistical, nbecasue even in your country limitations of freedom for the benefit of freedom in general are everyday rule.

You misunderstand. I don't want to convert you to my thinking. I just want to have a real discussion.

So many times you need until you can show how your ideal could make a chnage in reality witrhout destroying freedom. Because only then me and others would be willing to listen to you. As long as you assist the desatroyers of freedom and call that freedom as an ideal, you are dangerous, and must be stopped, because if you would have your way, that wpould be the end of freedom - becasue there are so many people wanting to destroy it in the world.

What??? I say I know that it's just an ideal, and I say that I know that it's not absolute, and I say that I know that there are always limits, and you ignore that and jump on my "ideals" again. And again you ignore everything I say just so you can argue some more.

Ideals - are not good enough, and intentions mean not much more. It is the deed and its consequence that decides the value of your choice - not how you meant it to be.

And I've said that. And you've ignored me and what I've said and argued with what you have want me to have said. You're not even listening, are you.

I have understood you perfectly already back then.

Obviously and painfully not.

It's just that your thinkling is so self-contradictory that it does not only not convince at all, but instead even alarms me. I will not spare you to remind you of how self-contradictory you are in your understanding of freedom.

And you're not thinking at all. You're preaching again, just like any religious fanatic. Once again - I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Everything you've said about me is based on one simple statement. And as I've repeatedly said, and you've repeatedly ignored, I know that that statement is an ideal, and I know it's only a starting point, a statement of belief, and I know that nothing is ever that black-and-white. On the other hand, you seem to be exactly than in your Crusade.

One of my problems, or graces, depending on how you look at it, is that I cannot trust anyone who "knows" that they are right. If there is no possibility in your world that you might be wrong, then there is nothing for you to learn, and you are dangerous as well.

We two engaged explicitly over your derailed concept of "absolute freedom or no freedom at all".

No, you engaged, or rather attacked. And "absolute freedom or no freedom at all" is not what I said. In fact, as I've tried to tell you repeatedly, what I believe is very much different. You would rather argue with what you say I believe than listen to what I really believe.

This is useless. Tell me when you can solve that freedom paradoxon, then you will find me listening fully interested. Else... well...

I have no paradox at all. I believe in freedom. I believe in fighting for it. There are always problems, and nothing is ever black and white. But you have to start somewhere, and I choose to start with the concept that either you have it or you don't. And I go from there, but you refuse to see anything but the simple statement, and you attack that without ever trying to find out what I really believe. The paradox is all in your head.

I may be nuts, but you're dangerous.

Actually what I always call the freedom paradoxon is more correctly entitled the tolerance paradoxon. But the meaning is the same.

Is that what you truly believe?

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.

It "must"? Someone better than I could have a lengthy debate on that concept, and it sounds good (which is probably why you fell for it) but as soon as anyone says it "must" without showing why, then it is his logic which is already faulty, not mine.

As for extending tolerance to those who are intolerant, I believe, as TR said, in speaking softly but carrying a very big stick. Because the opposite is also true - if you show only intolerance then you have already destroyed society.

However, 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.

That I can agree with. The reason I call you the enemy is that that section also describes you. No, I don't trust them, and I stand ready to fight them even as I try to show them what the world could be if they would listen. Again, it's that "big stick" thing.

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.

Sounds good on paper, but knowing where to draw the line is the hard part, and you obviously believe that the line should be drawn on their throats. You may be right, but I don't like your tone of pretending to "know" you're right, and that's where we part ways.

And there's the problem that it's all his opinion, and he may be wrong. We must be watchful, and ready to defend ourselves at all costs, but to give up any notion of freedom at all is to destroy what we claim to protect, and at that point we don't have a way of life left to protect.

And if that closed, circular reasoning is what Popper has to offer, and what you base your beliefs on, then you need to find a new prophet. That one seems to be making it up as he goes along.

Show this to be wrong or show how you can practice your differing concept of freedom/tolerance without allowing the other to destroy your freedom when he abuses your tolerance. You whole idea of freedom stands or falls with your ability to do either the one or the other of these two. If you can, then we talk again. If you cannot, then I have nothing more to say.

I hope you have nothing more to say, because so far all you've done is preach hate. As I said, your "debate" on this subject sounds like religious fanaticism, and that makes you your own enemy.

Originally Posted by razark

That "unlimited freedom" thing? No one is suggesting it except you. The only ones I've seen mention "unlimited freedom" are you and Popper. Unlimited freedom would indeed lead to anarchy, etc. That's why our freedom is very much limited. My freedom to do what I want ends where it infringes on someone else's rights. Their freedom to do what they want ends when it infringes on mine. As has been stated elsewhere, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Building a mosque does nothing to infringe on your freedom. Not allowing someone to build on land they own does infringe on their right.

Thank you for understanding what I've been saying. Not for agreeing with me, because unlike some I don't claim to have the monopoly on truth, and I like to hear other opinions. But at least you noticed that I have never, ever, advocated "unlimited freedom".

[Skybird]

Thanks for once again ignoring that I answered your question several times now.

I conclude from that that it shall be the "else..." option then.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Thanks for once again ignoring that I answered your question several times now.

Which one? I'm still trying to talk, and you're still lecturing. What has changed?

[Gerald]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Which one? I'm still trying to talk, and you're still lecturing. What has changed?

Nothing have changed,"I will stand my ground, and I won't back down" good sig!