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

Just a reminder atheists, you are voting for a standard that I will follow to a T. So, I hope you enjoy being comared to Hitler, because what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and I will be only too happy to refer the mods to this poll when they ask me, "WTF?" after you go whining to them because someone on the forum compared your faith to ... whatever.

It'll be your standard, and you will have to live by it.

 

I agree that some of the irrelevant arguments should go away, and I would welcome some efficient way of getting rid of them, I think the version you advocate will not stop those who often do it, but will only stop those who have relevant arguments.

I say just ignore them. And not ignore them like giving them an angry silent treatment. When I am likened to Stalin, I listen to the argument, if the argument is invalid, I write why, or if the argument is off topic, I answer those parts of the question that is not off topic. It wouldn't surprise me if a fair few of the ones who do this do it because you overreact so much.

Arguments from association are fallacies. A few of the arguments are not arguments from association. Answering the relevant parts of a question will solve all those problems.

 

REally? Its kind of hard to ignor ethem when people follow you around and make them in the middle of actual discussions, an dteh forum is swamped with them. And now, as we see here:

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/265159-atheists-please-explain.html

Most atheists are going to great length to justify the behavior, and so the forum is increasingly filled with the silliness of Hitler and the counter claims of Stalin, etc.

The part that utterly amazes me though? Is the number of atheist posters who are roundly condemning the behavior when it is aimed at them, but then using some of the most rediculous argiuementation and double standards to justify it when it is aimed at others.

No worries. If nothing else, this poll will allow both myself and the mod team to effectively ignore the screaming atheists who appear to be, quite literally signing up in support of the behavior.

Why, allowing the mod team to come in an unilaterally stop it in order to allow actual discussion to take place?

As for ignore Swenn, would you care to guess how many atheists I have on my ignore list? Nevertheless, I STILL have atheists following me around reporting when I remind them about Stalin after being compared to Hitler - because such antics deserve to be banned ... but of course, when they interrupt a converstaion to make such silly claims? Their intent is merely ... analytical?

Again, I am all for a level playing field, but I am tired of atheists attempting to have it both ways:

#1 - YOU are like Hilter - Ha ha I am so smart!

#2 - What, I as in ME, am like Hitler - Help, Help mods, mods ... there is a troll on the loose!

And then someone mentions Neitzsche .... nothing. Seriously Swenn, I am beginning to doubt that rational discussion with atheists is impossible. If so, so be it. I will happily continue to embarass them when they misbehave and expose the silly behavior for exactly what it is. In each case, if that is what is necessary, I will just re-direct them to this poll, and remind them than, despite having no doctrine, as a member of this community they signed up for the behavior.

For the record, as most of the forums atheists apparently fear to go on record and vote? THe fact that they did not 'vote' in no way changes the intent of the community. Its just, unlike you, a lazy attempt to avoid standards - and all the atheists behaving so atrocuiously are deliberately avoiding it.

 

Yes, let's ban comparisons and analogies you find offensive!

 

then quit posting stupid rcrap like this thread.

and you call people atheist ALL DAY LONG!!!!!!!

to you and atheist is the most horrid thing on the earth, simply because the people DO NOT BELIEVE it is ok to LIE, to others or themselves.

When YOU stop slinging crap, i am sure other will too!!!!!!!!!!

focus on the "GOOD" of the old theology versus the crap. YOU label people far more than perhaps any single poster, beside me on this forum.

The difference is, I am that he you keep wanting to believe, but just havent realized it yet.

I personally have given you every opportunity possible; you do not accept truth over belief. (even though, you get slappped in the face, constantly with it)


That fool ignors me, because he knows, the preachers will be unemployed before i am done and this thread is an example of what will be the fuel: the casting of judgment upon other, when they are the beasts (the liars), themselves.

 

See, we can agree on stuff sometimes Neutral. rofl!

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention, Reductio ad Hitlerum is mainly a guilt by association fallacy. Also I think it's a bit of a running joke, how long can you debate someone before they call you Hitler and compare your position to the Nazi party? Hahaha!

 

No worries. In my opinion, anyone who does that should automatically lose. Period. No questions asked. There are indeed a few forums out there that do have that very rule. It seems to work.

 

Now we command you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is walking in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us. 2 Thessalonians 3:6.

So its allowed to go against, or at the very least, keep away from a non-believing leader. There tends to be some inconsistency in the Bible so its difficult to use one verse to prove a point. Hitler in particular is often linked with atheism and had some clearly negative views about christianity.

I think its important to question religion, but I think you're doing it in an incorrect manner.

 

Its because its wisdom. Context, circumstances, events, all matter when making moral judgements. Its exactly what the Bible says. What atheist dismiss as contradictions are actually extollings to make you realize that context matters. Pretty simple.

For example, stealing is wrong, but we in no way shape or form treat someone who is stealing food because he is starving the same way as we treat a man robbing banks to feed his addiction to prostitution. Both are sins, one desevres compassion and aid so the man can sin no more, the other ... desreves a sharp and sift punishment, and probably treatment for sexual addiction to boot.

These concepts are not alien to atheists, so I find myself perplexed that thing kind of analysis seems to ellude so many atheists?

 

If you follow an incredibly inconsistent book, then you lose.

 

Ok then, is it necessary to compare you to Hitler? No, of course no one actually was as far as I know, but you would be more aware of that than me obviously. Is it necessary to compare some aspect of religion to some aspect of Hitlers reign? No, but it certainly can be done with reasonable backing. So should people on this forum have the right to make comparisons to evil people, or a some aspect of their reign? Of course, because it can be done reasonably.

 

The poll is completely biased. A simple yes or no would have sufficed and left bias out of the equation.

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

No.

Why? Because one man's evil villain is another man's freedom fighter. Now I stand against all that Hitler embodies, but the OP included in the question "(any other 'evil' person)" which opens Pandora's box. To me OBL was an evil killer, but to many he was a freedom fighter fighting for God. I think banning free speech is dangerous and makes us like Hitler and OBL.

 

That's a good point, certainly a well said explanation that honestly does make me understand better. Yet at the same time, you must concede that there are without a doubt christians that make similar mistakes and therefore all ignorance should not be attributed to athiests although some individuals, rather than the group as a whole, certainly deserve some of it. Many fundamental christians will do the same thing. Recognize a verse as a literal, sometimes without regards to context, and make it law in their mind. I've been reading many of your posts, obviously, and you tend to portray a war between atheists and christians, or whatever religion, but some of us are just trying to understand.

 

Obama is the next Hitler! He is a bigoted racist pig.

 

These are the types of meaningless comparisons that shouldn't be allowed if any.

 

Well I think your post should not be allowed as it contains nothing but meaningless complaint and crying because you do not agree with me. My post is simply a comparison and my opinion is they are similar.

 

A great example of why it is always a fail to invoke Hitler's name in a thread- and how it reflects far more on the poster than on the person Hitler is being compared to.

 

Hey I did it because I can. This thread is nonsensical.

But really I can compare Obama to hitler but that has more to do with the fact that he is in office than what one can actually attribute to him.

How about in the climate of looming inflation, massive debt, gun control lockdown in many cities, race relation low... and the presidential order that can suspend elections the climate is right for a dictator such as Hitler to come to power in a similar fashion. Prepare to be paid with worthless money and a scapegoat to be found. Even the jews.

The leader when he stops elections has the authority to send anyone he wants to Cuba, lock down cities due to recent outbreaks of gun violence and try to take up all firearms in the US. This man is close to a socialist and would get support from the communist fringes as he moves to a nationalist social party.

 

It's actually completely relevant to the thread seeing that it's exactly what the thread is about. The fact is actually that your reply is meaningless as a result.

 

No because I feel this thread is pointless. To ask that people not be allowed to share their views on a political opinion forum is asinine. I think that may be the first time I have done that hitler thing.

 

Another great example of why it is always a fail to invoke Hitler's name in a thread- and how it reflects far more on the poster than on the person Hitler is being compared to.

 

If that's what you really believe, then that's what you should have said to begin with. I guess you were trying to prove a point, but clearly, it didn't really work.

 

Sorry Neutral but... My post was as pointless as this thread. I do understand the premise (probably more than others) but unfortunately we can not do away with it. Just as we feel someone is making a dumb post; others feel we are doing the same.

You can not force others to think Neutral no matter how hard you try. The best we can hope to do us try and understand what they are trying to say.

Hitler, Stalin, Obama; Dream team!

 

silly posters make silly comparisons. it's better to have the idiots show themselves than to have to flush them out.