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

Right now the poll shows a resounding defeat for censorship: 8:3 in favor of free speech. Fortunately we don't live under religious law (yet), so freedom rules.

 

Don't forget that I, and possibly others, can't bring myself to click 'no' because it has a biased piece of propaganda tacked on to it. I consider this poll invalid, regardless of what it shows, due to the leading nature of the response options.

 

Well, I will consider it binding. So when it aimed back at you, well, this will provide a perfect reminder to the moderation team that comparing atheists to Hilter, reminding the community that atheists have the most violent history in the world, in less than a century, is all fair game. Necessary, simply a 'check' and excessive religion.

All it does for me is prevent the mods from listening the hoard of flame baiting trolls who are attempting to ply both sides of the standard.

We are Hitler - Haha, what a valid critcism of religion!

You are Hitler - What!?! I cannot belive that the mods would tolerate such deliberate flame bait!!!! Mods, Mods ...



I really don't care what the standard is, but I adhore the fanatical atheists out there that attempt to dishonestly play it both ways. So, even you, not exactly a zealot as some others are, decided that the behavior was fine when you had a chance to say, "Yeah, that needs to stop."

Well, I bow before the will of the community, and will happily provide atheism with the appropriate feedback it needs to cirtique itself. I am sure the mods will be only to happy to remind the atheists what they signed upfor when they overwhelmingly voted to allow comparison's to hilter and other uncivil flame bait.

Well, I hope you enjoy the constant Crusades vs. Stalin debates that will no doubt follow, complete with mud slinging and emotional animosity - its what this community, the majority of whom are atheist demand!

So be it.

 

It okay I will be hitler today. Hail me!

 

Such an objective, unemotional, evidenced based cult, er .. religion ... er .. whatever you guys want to call yourself .. today anyway. Oh, today you are Hilter. Good to know.

 

So if I understand you properly, you're saying you'd likely have a PROBLEM with the following poll question I was going to ask?:
"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
[ ] Yes.
[ ] No.

 

Well this way you do not have to be.

And religion means nothing to me outside of the fact that I believe. That is not to say I do not care it is sating God is not my tool. If I can not formulate an argument without using God then I have no argument.

 

I was with you when you said "fair game", but I didnt exactly say it was 'fine'. I said it was stupid and unhelpful. I just don't think that things should be banned for simply being stupid and/or unhelpful. There are already rules about flamebaiting and so on - if someone makes a thread comparing people to Hitler and it's clearly flamebait, shut it down. If someone makes a thread comparing people to Hitler and there's reasonable doubt about whether they're sincere or trolling, let it stand, and hopefully other posters will show how stupid and unhelpful the thread is.

 

Well, here is the reality of what is happening.

Your co-religionists want to be able to (*)(*)(*)(*) all over Christianity with whatever insult they chose.

When you are critical of your silly faith? They report it to the overwhelmingly atheist mod team and ..

Atheists, please explain - without draggung in th mods because this is flame bait


Started by Neutral, Today 11:19 AM

One mod deletes it, not an atheist, for the off-topic rants from your peers. Another, who happens to be an atheist, deletes it as flame baot because the exact same behavior directed at atheists, behavior your religion overehlemingly supports, is now flame bait.

Sorry pal, your religion has been hijacked by hypocrites and fundamentally dishonest people.

 

Well, I don't entirely disagree, I just think the hijacking isn't as extensive as you believe it is. 'vocal minority' is the way I'd envision it.

 

A vocal miniority that actively seks to stop anyone from disgreeing with them by empoying over flame baiting campaigns.

 

Haha, you can compare people's (non)religious/political positions to the Nazi party all day and night, that won't change the fact that it is a very stupid and losing fallacy in debate.

 

Speaking of Sharia Law, do you agree that it's barbaric (cutting off hands), horrifically cruel (stoning to death for sex outside marriage), morally despicable (slaughtering someone for simply having sex with the "wrong" gender), and horribly against free speech (death for blasphemy), etc.?

 

Strictly speaking the Jews had sharia long before the muslims adopted it.

 

How? Did Mohammed, who created sharic law, travel back in time?

 

Its the same law you wil find in tribal Africa - only there? You do not critcize it do you? Odd. You will find similar laws in every tribal society on earth. But you ONLY criticize sharia and OT laws?

Are you aware that in the areas where sharia is making a come back, like northern Nigeria, its because secular jurisprudence has failed miserably? Courts are corrupt, ineffective, and are simply not trusted. Sharia is actually better than overt corruption and a total lack of justice - is why people chose it in 700AD, and why some people are choosing it now.

Youa re also aware that there are several different schools of sharia law? Traditions that have evolved since the time of the prophet? Just like OT law has evolved in Israel?

Blind adherence to propoganda is a dangerous think. It worked for McCarthy though ...

 

The majority are in favor of comparisons to Hitler.

I wish your options had been worded better. I voted in favor of comparisons. While I hate 'Godwins Law' people will bring it up anyway.
I get sick of people bringing up Hitler during an abortion debate, but they will do it whether you tell them to or not.

I think, depending on the comparison, an argument could be made. For example, if someone went through the Bible and took the number of innocents killed by God in the OT, and compared this to the innocents killed by Hitler, one could ask why one is considered evil and the other is considered good. Its a fair question, no matter how religious you are.

 

for Gnostics, the God of the OT is Satan. still, 11 million dead in a systematic campaign to wipe out "inferior" races is a tough act to compete with.

 

It is a fair question, and one that, when asked fairly, deserves a fair answer. THe answer is:

#1 - its not viewed as 'good', its viewed as necessary.

#2 - The context is that of war. Unfortunately, the morality of the battlefield if far different from everyday life, and, as is taught in literally every church I have been in, no one thinks that what happens on a battlefield is reflective of morality when home.

Even within warfare however, there are - at least in modern times - rules and expectations that define 'moral' combat. It seems a bit oxymoronish, but it is reality. One of these rules, clearly violated by Hilter, is proportionality. Fro example, when a sniper engages our troops from a crowded village, we do not allow them to respond with B-52's and wipe out the entire village. In fact, should that happen, we would charge the on scene commander with murder - rightly so.

Much of what Hilter did was not necessary for the conduct of the war, and was actually a hinderence to the German War effort onec it became clear that the war was all or nothing. THe guards used to watch, torture, and murder Jews ... and many others, are assets not on the battlefield. The labor lost throug murder, even as Russia used every able bodied person either as connon fodder or virtual slave labor ... well, you can see how that adds up. Not does Hilter's action make no military sense, it evil - it is the deliberate targetting of the innocent - literally murder, to accomplish what?

Now contrast that with ancient times. If you lose a war in at the cross roads of empires in the days of the old testament - you are done. The Egyptian captivity was the BEST you could expect if you lost. Usually what happened, was that your children were taken and sold into slavery, your wives raped and killed or sold into slavery, and the men slaughtered. You village pillaged and burnt to the groud, your field stripped bear and the excess hauled off to feed someone else's family. In short, if you lose - you were annihilated.

Many atheist on this forum speak of the barbarity of killing children, but, you don't have to look far to see it happening all over the region. A victorious power would almost always kill the royal family, powerful nobels and their family, in a garantee that the war would be ended. Its why Alexander's son was murdered. In fact, Marc Antony's failure to kill Octavian (not exactly a direct descendant of Ceasar) points to exactly the danger of allowing noble born children to survive, and the tangible threat they bestowed upon the legitimacy of rulers. We forget that political function was then not exactly what it is today.

There are very few people who think that what the Jews did was ... good, only that it was necessary.

Another analogy to make the point. Patton killed thousands. He was involved in the exact same war as Hilter. Yet we remember Patton as a great, albeit very cavalier with the live sof his Soldiers in achieving results, warrior, and we remember Hilter as a monster. Rommel vs. Himmler. Guderian vs. Eichmann ... Donitz vs. ... well, you get the point.

The simple fact of the matter is that we can take, at face value, any war and make over simply comparisons to Hilter, but such analysis usually indicates a lack of familiarity with everything save thr reputation of Hilter.

Nobody thinks that killing children is good. But what would you do to safe guard your children from an implacable enemy? What would you do to protect your homes? Your life? If others repeatedly attacked you and made the elimination of all that their goal? After fighting your way to victory? Would you be Marc Antony? Would you allow the Empire to be ripped apart by a wayword child who reappears and starts another bloody and expensive war ... knowing full well that while you exhausted yourself against the Egyptians again, you had the babylonians behind you? The Romans, beating on your door step?

Look what happened to the Jews at Massada? The cost of losing was annhilation. Whe teh Jews revolted against Rome ... the diaspora followed, and two thousand year of pogroms and persecution followed ... ending in the Halocaust. The analogy to Hilter is, to Jews in particular, incredibly offensive and short sighted.

The Jews having to make the decisions were not thinking about walking their dog the next day, they were thinking about securing their families, their entire way of life, for as long as they could - until the Messiah arrived. The Jews had no illusions about the precarious strategic balance they faced, and the need to send a message to MUCH more powerful enemies that sticking your hand into ancient Israel would be an painful as they could possible make it.

To do anything else was to be annhiliated. Period.

Necessasry vs. good? Its not a decision process I think many Americans are familiar with any more ...

 

By the way, there are a couple of you that are saying this thread poll was worded ... misleadingly. If so, please make one of your own, because I detect a current of consensus that the vaccuous comparison to Hilter, no matter who it is aimed at, is deemed ... unhelpful at best. If that is so, I would love to see the line of questioning that bears it out.

No offnse would be taken in correcting the line of reasoning, at least from me anyway ...

 

i'm surprised this has gone on as long as it has with no one calling you a nazi-nazi. :O)

 

Well, at least not publically anyways ...

 

I would love to see Hitler comparisons banned, the rule would cut useless posts and save more space for serious ones!

 

Hitler was despised in the north of Germany, especially in the Hanseatic cities like Hamburg, Bremen etc. And he hated the Hanseatic states. Too many communists because of the stevedoring unions.

Hitler never set foot in Hamburg, only passing through via a high security train. He was seriously concerned about assassination.

 

I don't whine to mods. Grow up, kiddo and wipe your tears away.