Question: Should comparisons to Hilter (any other 'evil' person) be banned here?

So, rather than beat my head against a brick wall, I figured a direct polling within the community would get to the heart of the matter. As the intent of denate forum is debate, not the silly hurling of "You are like Hitler," vs., "Yeah, well, YOU are like Stalin - and Moa!!"

Perhaps there is a better way. Clearly neither side in this forum much appreciates it when their faith is compared to ... Al Qaeda, nor, too my knowledge, has such a comparison ever sparked a genuine debate - just a mutual flame fest.

So, here is yor opportunity to go on the record. I will consider this poll binding, at least for me, one way or the other. That way, when the behavior happen, I can refer back to the poll, and remind both the community and the moderation team, that the behavior in question, whether aimed at Christians, Muslims, or atheists, is not only helpful or unhelpful ... but is accepted or rejected by the community.

So please, caste your vote, and I will accept the results.

 

There's no sense in banning something on a public, open forum. I haven't been on this forum long, so I haven't really seen any of that. If people are really making stupid comparisons like that without reasonable backing then just ignore them.

 

Yes, the Reductio ad Hitlerum is really, really annoying in generally any debate. First of all I find it hilarious because as far as genocidal murderers go, Hitler actually didn't kill as many people as say Pol Pot, Mao or Stalin. And second of all it is a pointless ad hom/red herring/strawman/tons of other fallacies I cannot think of. It is ridiculous and stupid.

I wish they could be banned, but I don't see that happening any time soon.

 

But we already do, don't we.

We don;t allow people to come in and start thread that say things like, "We should kill the President." Some things, IMHO, are simply not conducive to civil discussion.

 

Well, consensus goes a long way.

And I rarely write this in a debate forum, but I agree with everything you say.

And I don't even have to use my own ficticious web site too boot!

www.agreewitheverythingisay.com

 

That's a fair point, but I don't believe that's not allowed because its not conductive to discussion. Obviously it isn't, but I think that's more connected to national security. And I don't mean to say that it would lead to anything if someone posted something along those lines, but I do think a government agent would take a second look if he/she saw it.

 

Hitler's countrymen loved and adored him. They obeyed his every command just as the Bible instructs people to follow their leaders. They endured untold hardships to help him achieve his goals for their country. They were always saying his name as a sign of their personal loyalty to him.

Unlike most Americans they obeyed Exodus 22:28 = “Don’t curse God; and don’t (*)(*)(*)(*) your leaders."

 

Agh, the Nazi Party never won a majority election. His 'people' truied to assassinate him.

Well, I can see why you want to retain this silliness. It is apparently all you have.

 

That's a false equivalency, and with your logic we can compare god to any leader, good or bad.

 

It was only a couple of malcontents that tried to harm Hitler. They executed them. The people supported him to the very end. That's really why Americans generally tend to hate him. They hate their own leaders and expect other people to hate theirs as well.

 

The Bible says that God appoints all leaders. To go against them is to rebel against God.

 

Under normal circumstances. being lawful is an important tradition, and, as usual, there is silliness in thinking that an admonition to be lawful and productive members of a state, to seek to build communities and support leaders, is actually a commandment to ... follow an evil leader and do anything and everything.

This is what happens when you take SINGLE sentences out of the Bible and ignore context entirely.

Can you tell me how the Bible, with such blind devotion, can spawn something known as liberation theology?

 

Do you know what it takes to topple a government in the middle of a war by force? It was the entire Junker class.

What does that have to do with comparing atheists to Hitler? Or are you trying to say that atheist, like Germans with Hitler, failed miserably to rise up and topple Stalin? Many actually weeping when Papa Joe died?

Are we having a productive, civil conversation about whether comparisons to Adolf spawn civilzed conversations about ... in this case behavior ... or whether the behavior is pointlessly and hopeless unproductive and distracting?

Well, you are proving my point. Thank you.

 

And I'm sure there are other Bible verses that invalidate that.

 

Didn't people get punished for not killing everyone as God commanded them to do?

Punishment for Incomplete Genocide
http://www.thebricktestament.com/judges/punishment_for_incomplete_genocide/jg02_01a.html

And aren't you supposed to kill everyone and who follows false gods in your territory and destroy all of their possessions?
Religious Tolerance
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/religious_tolerance/dt13_13-15.html

 

I thought that the contention was that Hitler was evil. I pointed out that his countrymen loved him and supported him to the end. They never wavered in their devotion and obedience to him. You would have been hard pressed to find Germans who considered him to be evil.

Americans consider him to have been evil because they generally hate their leaders and expect other people to hate theirs as well. Heck, a lot of Americans didn't like George Washington.

 

Wisdom. That is what the Bible calls.

And the intent, when people read the whole thing would be - in a place like America, where we have sound, rational government, to be good an lawful citizens, productive members of the community ... rather than the dolts that have ararchistic riots to wake people up ... to thing they don;t know what they want to wake people up to? DO atheists adovate the later? Or former? Both? Neither? Who knows?

Now if you are a Christian in say China ... yes you follow the government, there is no need to say ... violate mining safety laws, but you will also practice you faith in secret if you have to - even though this technically violates the law.

What exactly are atheists disagreeing with here? Or are we simply looking to be obstinate?

And what do these pointless little barbs have to do with the subject at hand? Which is, do YOU think it is necessary, in civil discussion, to compare someone to Hilter?

Do you need to compare me to Hilter tyo ask why Christians are advised to be good and productibe citizens? Really?

 

You are playing semantics. Obviously, someone who killed at least 6 million Jews was not friendly. The rest of the world rose up and monkey stomped him. His countrymen did not love him. But that is a debate for another time and place.

If you wish to discuss it, start a thread - in the history section - about whether or not Hilter was loved by his people. You will have plenty of historical minded posters who will disagree with you there.

 

Yawn. I suppose I could prove the point by posting some bland dictate from Stalin, Moa, Pol Pot, whatever, and demonstrate jst how pointless this all is.

But, as we see what happens when Hitler and other zant antics come into play, the point is not discussion or civility, but pointless barns whose sole intent is be silly.

Tell me atheists, if I pulled a random website that highlighted the deaths caused by atheism, and went, "Gosh guys, why would you sing up for something is so violenet and unreasonable? You guys all genocidal maniacs?

Is there some reason, when asking a NEUTRAL question about comparisons to Hilter, that someone has to bring up the OT? Which is, of course, not being debated ANYWHERE else on the forum, and NEEDS to be here as well?

Isn't there ALREADY a rule about metaposts?

 

Cite them.

 

Just remember atheists, I wil consider this poll binding. So, path, please vote.

 

There's no real evidence that Hitler killed 6 million Jews. There's just a lot of propaganda that he did. However, the numbers don't jive with the number of Jews in Europe at that time. So if the numbers are wrong then how can he be considered evil?

 

Halocaust denial!

Man, you atheists got some ringers in your corner!

 

The options in this poll are a little leading. I generally find such comparisons unhelpful, silly, and spammy - but I wouldn't want to ban any speech that doesn't incite violence or other criminal behaviour. So my answer is no, but I don't "need to compare you to Hilter" [sic].

 

That is a little broader than the poll question, which is pretty specific Prof.

It specific to deliberate comparisons of something to Hilter (or any other evil). There are forums out there that already have this rule in place, and their religion section is ... less of a basket case.

For example, the question about slavery roles in the OT are, of course, legit. Is it necessary tio have a dicussion about that subject by saying, "Nanner, nanner boo boo, you are just like Hilter!" Does that drive civil discourse on the subject? Or does it simply invite retaliation? COmparisons to Stalin? In short, are such comparisons merely flame bait?

So you are OK banning speech that insights violence, but for some reason, we have to protect the silly ass comparison to Hitler?

Ok, if that is what the community wants? So be it. But standards cut both ways Prof.

That means, when all the atheist whine to the mod team that someone is 'trolling' based on these comparisons, the mods and the person making the comparison will be able to look at this poll and say, "Heh, you thought this was just fine, good for the goose and good for the gander."

Its not a 'trap', is a discussion about what standards are best for this little internet community, and the deliberate seeking of consensus on the standard. If Hilter comparisons are OK? SO be it.

Howver, as Christian participating in this forum, and I am not alone on this, I am tired of having to defend myself against nearly constant claims that my faith is like Hitler, and thenhaving to have discussions with the mod team because the same atheists that just compared me to Hilter, were pissed off that I reminded them of atheisms failure with Stalin ... which was of course trolling.

What we need is a clear standard. We do not have that, and the mods are as frustrated by this as I am. A clear standard of what is and is not acceptable will make things much easier for all involved.