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

I laugh at people who throw out the "Hitler" or "Fascist" or "Nazi" card. It means they have to real argument other than to call someone names and it weakens their position or "Logos" in the eyes of others. Both sides of the political spectrum do it and while I wish it would stop and people would actually talk to each other instead of at each other, I doubt it will.

 

Hey sometimes it is not meant that way. I honestly dont think I have done it but if I were to say???? Call you Hitler it would be related to something you said and simply a comparison of the two. Perhaps a similar trait.

Here you go: With all the anti-Semitism around here I am surprised there are not Swastika Avatars all over the place. Hell______________ (insert member name) is hitler and the rest of you are his followers.

 

Neither are you the only atheist on the forum, but I am sure it was the ... Jews? Who reported two threads yesterday that were a collection of atheist arguments, comparing the nihilistic slander and the mass participation of atheists, compared to a discussion of Neitzsche and the equally deafening silence from atheists. Well, can you explain to me why they were first closed and then deleted .... Or is evidence a difficult thing for you?

I especially enjoy attempting to have a civil discussion with someone while your angry peers are reporting everything I say because anything critical of an atheist is automatically flame bait and a personal insult?

Don't believe me, you apparently disagree with stupid comparisons to Hitler, but when one of your peers dumped comparisons to Hilter, three times mind you, as well as the KKK, and Al Qaeda. You were stunningly silent in the face of those antics, which you apparently disagree with.

Nevertheless, after making this poll and being told by your peers that these antics are absolutely necessary, and even with a context specifically designed to make the point, I crunched the historical numbers, and it turns out atheism has an awful lot of blood on its hands ... And it therefore a lot like Hitler. Well, when it was aimed anywhere near your precious faith, this behavior that your peers are screaming MUST be upheld ....NAND you got out of your way to call me a hypocrite for acknowledging that my attempts to reign in the behavior has been rejected overwhelmingly by ... Your peers.

In short, as we can see, behavior that atheists find acceptable are totally infuriating when aimed back at them. Of course, atheism being what it is, is to what? Self absorbed? Mioptic? What? Too see or even give a rats behind about the infuriating effects of the same behavior that infuriates them on others?

Or is stupidly infuriated others the point? So you can then run to the mod team and declare what comes back ... Trolling? But only when aimed at atheists?

Nah, being against that kind of behavior is what makes both me an Christianity so utterly crappy.

 

And what would the likely reply to that be? Probably a great big F You? Correct?

If it were aimed at YOU, who is clearly not Hitler, how would you find the stupid reference to Hitler? Or would assume that someone is just trying to (*)(*)(*)(*) on you?

 

The issue here is psychology.

You are having a debate with a group and then the Jew are fault for everything in the world. You try to bring it back but no luck. So instead of saying (*)(*)(*)(*) you yourself you make a statement like the one I mad and then perhaps it get back on topic or they say (*)(*)(*)(*) YOU.

Perhaps we could get OP thread moderation tools around here. Keep threads on topic and allow real discussion.

 

Well, maybe you could just call that racism? Would a stupid comparison to Hitler do anything other than create a circus?

 

The stupidity is already there.

 

And responding with even greater stupidity does nothing to eliminate it.

After all, take a good hard look at the atheists who demand that this behavior be tolerated ... so that they can remind us of how violent and bloody Christians are. Remember, context does not matter when they make these comparisons.

For example, Stalin's antics are dismissed as mere communism, a political system. Yet the political system during the time of the Crusades was fuedalism - which of course has no bearing. All that matters in these circuitous presentations of atheist logic at its finest, is death an dthe involvement of anything Christian. Atheists have, as we see, signe dup in droves to support such antics.

http://www.politicalforum.com/religion/265237-atheism-most-violent-religion-earth.html

Yet when we crunch the numbers, especially given atheism comparatively short life with its grafting into politics, we see that atheism, by the standards it is so quick to judge others by, is the worst of the bunch. Oddly, even though this poll confirms that atheists indeed demand these kinds of logical examinations of faith groups, well, you can see atheists attempting to simpluy call the display of their own logic ... flame bait?

Is there a point to pretending that history of filled with a bunch of idiots who dance to a tune of oversimplification? That this over simplification and generalization apply to everyone but your own faith group? (It's not like Christians are totally above this behavior). What is the point of making such a silly leap in logic? Other than to rudely slam someone?