The Geert Wilders trial

[The Wizard]

Holland has banned Mein Kampf, so Wilders argues that the holy book of a billion people is the same as that book and deserves to be banned as well. The banning of Mein Kampf is ludicrous and wrong, as is Wilders's claim.

[Meneldil]

Holland has banned Mein Kampf, so Wilders argues that the holy book of a billion people is the same as that book and deserves to be banned as well. The banning of Mein Kampf is ludicrous and wrong, as is Wilders's claim.

Who cares it's the holy book of a billion people? It could be the holy book of 99% of the earth population, or the holy book of 3 nutjobs, it wouldn't change a thing.

[Fragony]

And there we have it, yet another scientific rapport from a knowologue, Wilders is not extreme right, but new-right radical. wut? Release of the rapport has nothing to do with the trial of course, but once again they turn out to be to stupid and made a mistake, if you are going to release a months old rapport at the right time and claim it wasn't done yet (minister of internal affairs who ordered the rapport said so and proudly presented it yesterday IT IS DONE), at least change the dates on the adobe-documents.

[The Wizard]

Who cares it's the holy book of a billion people? It could be the holy book of 99% of the earth population, or the holy book of 3 nutjobs, it wouldn't change a thing.

As far as it should never be banned, yes. Just like the holy book of 3 nutjobs, aka Mein Kampf.

The thing is, Wilders never said the same thing about the Bible. And there are quite a few hate-filled passages in there, too...

Mein Kampf actually isn't banned, just about every library has it, there is just nobody who wants to sell it.

To answer Meneldil's question: well then, even more proof that he is an Islam-hating bigot. He's not even basing himself on some flimsy legal premise, just on his bias against a particular religion and culture.

What he shares with Wilders is a colonial background

No, he doesn't. As I pointed out to Louis at length, there is very little reason to believe Wilders is strongly informed by a colonial background in his actions. By a Dutch nationalist background, yes, though, so I agree with the rest of that paragraph.

EDIT: And friend, he is not "integrated", as he was raised by a Dutch family in an overwhelmingly Dutch rural area. He is an ethnic Dutchman and is perceived as such by all Dutchmen. This is what informs him, regardless of whatever Louis and his anthropologist claim. Wilders is in no way comparable to a first-generation immigrant from a third world country.

[Fragony]

To answer Meneldil's question: well then, even more proof that he is an Islam-hating bigot. He's not even basing himself on some flimsy legal premise, just on his bias against a particular religion and culture.

Isn't like Mein Kampf isn't bestseller in Islamic countries, and Hitler isn't seen as a hero

Also isn't like teachers avoid the subject of the holocaust or the rascals go nuts

[The Wizard]

So why does that justify banning the Qur'an again? Right.

[Fragony]

So why does that justify banning the Qur'an again? Right.

spreading hate obviously, it's impossible though and he knows it, but it's fun watching them fall on their swords.

[The Wizard]

spreading hate obviously, it's impossible though and he knows it, but it's fun watching them fall on their swords.

Might as well ban the PVV too, then, while we're at it...

[Hax]

Isn't like Mein Kampf isn't bestseller in Islamic countries, and Hitler isn't seen as a hero

Define Islamic countries. Certain things will sell better in Indonesia than in Morocco.

[Fragony]

Define Islamic countries. Certain things will sell better in Indonesia than in Morocco.

You are right the Middle East my bad

Might as well ban the PVV too, then, while we're at it...

Really, how come

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Xenophon of the Anabasis? I never read anything he said.

You should, he was a great thinker.

Sophistry, in its basic essence, is the acceptance of the fact that everything is relative.

No, it is about the ostensible teaching of wisdom. Relativism is abohorrant to moralism anyway, which is the point.

Socrates did not undermine this; Plato did. Or tried to, at least. Of course, I'm pretty biased because I automatically reject just about anything Plato says, so I might not be the best person to defend sophism in an good way.

This is impossible to know, as not a single Socratic work survives; only Platonic ones.

However, I do agree with you that sophism is rhetorical; as such, nothing is absolute. I think that might be the difference with what you said to be perception of morality and morality itself.

Morality is like truth, an absolute, whether or not they really exist is a seperate question from their nature. If you ascibe to a relativistic world view then you can only talk about individual perceptions of morality, not morality itself.

There is something else I would like to say; morality without rhetoricism is not morality at all, criticism of morality should not be seen as immoral but rather as a part of morality.

Morality is morality, criticism of someone's perception of morality is different. A badly argued moral good is still a moral good.

This is pretty much depending on the subject that you are discussing, is it not? After all, that's exactly what politics is all about (turning back the argument back to the Wilders trial). When it comes to the Wilders problem, it's not about taking a moral stance and just saying "You're wrong": it's about refuting his points by analysis of what he is saying and thus "winning" the debate.

However, as Wilders refuses to go into debate, there's not much that can be done, is there?

The first question to ask is whether what Wilders says has any truth in it, then where he intends to take his conclusions. The structure of his argument is a semantic question, not a relevant one. The use of rhetoric to refute his points is a question of technical proficiency, not morality.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, he doesn't. As I pointed out to Louis at length, there is very little reason to believe Wilders is strongly informed by a colonial background in his actions. By a Dutch nationalist background, yes, though, so I agree with the rest of that paragraph.

EDIT: And friend, he is not "integrated", as he was raised by a Dutch family in an overwhelmingly Dutch rural area. He is an ethnic Dutchman and is perceived as such by all Dutchmen. This is what informs him, regardless of whatever Louis and his anthropologist claim. Wilders is in no way comparable to a first-generation immigrant from a third world country.

You have rather missed my point, Wilders may have been raised authentically Dutch, but he doesn't look authentically Dutch. Children being what they are he was probably bullied at school, which is why he dyes his hair and has an intense identification with "traditional" Dutch culture. Loius sees the resemblence and judges him acvcordingly which shows Wilders probably has reason to be senitive.

However, the fact remains that he does have non-Dutch roots in Indonesia and therefore probably thinks that those who come to the Netherlands should integrate regardless of being wholly European or not.

[Fragony]

You have rather missed my point, Wilders may have been raised authentically Dutch, but he doesn't look authentically Dutch. Children being what they are he was probably bullied at school, which is why he dyes his hair and has an intense identification with "traditional" Dutch culture. Loius sees the resemblence and judges him acvcordingly which shows Wilders probably has reason to be senitive.

However, the fact remains that he does have non-Dutch roots in Indonesia and therefore probably thinks that those who come to the Netherlands should integrate regardless of being wholly European or not.

lolololol, please PVC, listen to the Wizard. Wilders is from Limburg, that is where we keep what we call 'spare-flemish'.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

lolololol, please PVC, listen to the Wizard. Wilders is from Limburg, that is where we keep what we call 'spare-flemish'.

So he doesn't look at all Indonesian? He does, doesn't he? Loius clearly sees it, and he's not the only one.

[Fragony]

So he doesn't look at all Indonesian? He does, doesn't he? Loius clearly sees it, and he's not the only one.

Maybe you are looking too hard for something that that just isn't there.

EDIT: I can totally see the Indonesian resemblance.

Perfect fit for the opinion, read the post the Wizard made, he is correct.

[The Wizard]

You have rather missed my point, Wilders may have been raised authentically Dutch, but he doesn't look authentically Dutch. Children being what they are he was probably bullied at school, which is why he dyes his hair and has an intense identification with "traditional" Dutch culture. Loius sees the resemblence and judges him acvcordingly which shows Wilders probably has reason to be senitive.

However, the fact remains that he does have non-Dutch roots in Indonesia and therefore probably thinks that those who come to the Netherlands should integrate regardless of being wholly European or not.

Excuse me? He doesn't look Dutch? I'm Dutch, and I wasn't aware he had Indo ancestry till I read so on the English language page of a Dutch newspaper (NRC Handelsblad) some months ago, talking about the same "study" Louis beats you around the head with every post or so. So no, he does look Dutch. The vast majority of Dutchmen will tell you he looks Dutch and upon being questioned will likely say he's as much a cheesehead as the next Bergkamp.

The reason I replied to you in that way was because you uncritically took Louis's posts at face value, while they are largely untrue. Wilders is in all likelihood not strongly informed by his part-Indo background at all, as I argued at length and without rebuttal. Rather, he is strongly informed by his Dutch nationalism and narrow view of the Dutch nation, which is widely held amongst Dutchmen (something denied by our political elite for decades, with disastrous consequences).

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The reason I replied to you in that way was because you uncritically took Louis's posts at face value, while they are largely untrue. Wilders is in all likelihood not strongly informed by his part-Indo background at all, as I argued at length and without rebuttal. Rather, he is strongly informed by his Dutch nationalism and narrow view of the Dutch nation, which is widely held amongst Dutchmen (something denied by our political elite for decades, with disastrous consequences).

Well, Frag has now admitted he sees it. If you take another look at what I wrote you'll see that I only agree with Loius in so far as having Indonesian heritage will have somewhat shaped Wilders outlook. Let me break it down, he had an Indonesian Grandmother, who emigrated to the Netherlands and (presumably) integrated alongside her Dutch husband. He sees people emigrating to the Netherlands now, not integrating, and this causing problems and he feels that it should stop.

To me, his reaction seems somewhat oversensitive, but if one consider's his own immigrant heritage then you can see why he would be much less likely to sign up to multiculturalism than the avergae Dutchman.

This is not to suggest he has some massive racial complex, quite the opposite, if anything.

[The Wizard]

I don't see Frag agreeing to anything of the sort here...

Oh, and my point was precisely that the average Dutchman doesn't like multiculturalism quite as much as you may think, at all. It's that fact that Wilders draws from and it's at the heart of his populism.