Score another one for the religion of peace..

[Got To Be Kidding]

Christians and Jews freely worshiping, underground rock bands, environmentalists, artists, women racing dirt bikes, water fights, Santa Claus and more.

Must be Iran.

And, your point is?

[Fortigurn]

Hmm. I believe I said casualties and not fatalities?

Yes you did, and I said fatalities. I wasn't misrepresenting what you said, I was pointing out the number of actual fatalities estimated since the argument was made previously on the basis of lives lost.

If you are going to cut and paste, at least get it right please. You are a moderator arent you?

It's ironic for you to complain of cutting and pasting, given that you copy/pasted half a page of Wikipedia yourself, whereas what I actually wrote wasn't copy/pasted.

Here is the post again.

Thanks, but it doesn't address anything I wrote. In particular, you failed completely to address the fact that the invasion was utterly unnecessary, so all this talk of how many American casualties there would have been is totally irrelevant.

You might think that the Allies crossed some moral boundary. I do not, either with the Japanese or Germans.
In fact I think both got off 1 00 times better than they deserved. If the Germans of Japanese won the war, you think they would have shown as much concern for the conquered and built them up post war into strong, developed countries?

This, people, is the dehumanising effect of ideological fanaticism.

[bigduke6]

I have stated that I believe the invasions were necessary. You are free to state your beliefs.
This position is no different from many others, even those who had to make the decision at the time. Some agree some don't.

When I quote or cut and paste I have the ability to quote many figures, some of which might be against my belief.
You simply state the lowest figure to support your position.

You on the other hand rant about ideological fanaticism when someone disagrees with your post.

I believe calling me an ideological fanatic is a personal attack.

As a moderator one expects more.
As you insulted me I think you are required to remove your post or apologies.
I assume I can now state that your post is what appeasing wankerism is all about folks.

Do you job and moderate.

[heimuoshu]

I have stated that I believe the invasions were necessary. You are free to state your beliefs.
This position is no different from many others, even those who had to make the decision at the time. Some agree some don't.

When I quote or cut and paste I have the ability to quote many figures, some of which might be against my belief.
You simply state the lowest figure to support your position.

You on the other hand rant about ideological fanaticism when someone disagrees with your post.

I believe calling me an ideological fanatic is a personal attack.

As a moderator one expects more.
As you insulted me I think you are required to remove your post or apologies.
I assume I can now state that your post is what appeasing wankerism is all about folks.

Do you job and moderate.

I believe that you were not attacked by the "moderator" and that while I do not entirely agree with either of you, your reliance on your own personal point of view and your incorrect interpretation of what others have said (as what happened in previous threads) means that you are viewing this as a personal attack. It clearly isn't. We have been supplied numbers and quotes from both sides. How you interpret them is up to you, but how you treat others based on their opinion isn't. Now whether you consider someone a wanker or a fanatic is personal, but calling and ideology fanatic or wankerism, clearly isn't and therefore as a forumosa "nobody" I vote that both post remain intact and the readers can decide if rules were broken here or not.

[bigduke6]

Yes, I disagreed with you about kindy teaching. So did others. That has nothing to do with misinterpretation as you well know.

However, being called an ideological fanatic because I disagree with someones belief is crap. Especially if this person is a moderator. I am not a fanatic for believing that the invasion of Germany and the bombing of Japan were acceptable.

Actually a proper moderator should have no bias on a topic he is moderating. In fact they should probably not be allowed to post on a topic they are moderating.

Well this has gone so far off topic it might be time to move on.

[heimuoshu]

Yes you disagreed in the kindy thread and so did others. Doesn't mean you were right. You can find others to agree with you here still doesn't mean you were right.
Fortigurn clearly commented on the statement and called the statement "ideological fanaticism"
He did not call you a fanatic. Should Bismarck stop posting in the living in Taiwan forum and Tempo Gain stop posting in the Teachng English forum because they moderate or only when they disagree with you?

[bigduke6]

Yes you disagreed in the kindy thread and so did others. Doesn't mean you were right. You can find others to agree with you here still doesn't mean you were right.
Fortigurn clearly commented on the statement and called the statement "ideological fanaticism"
He did not call you a fanatic. Should Bismarck stop posting in the living in Taiwan forum and Tempo Gain stop posting in the Teachng English forum because they moderate or only when they disagree with you?

Obviously you want to get involved in this thread, but not on the original topic.

Disagreeing with your views on kindy does not mean I am right. However, it does not mean you are right either. We could both be wrong.

Never, did I say your statements or posts were a result of the dehumanizing effects of being an asshole. However, if I did make this statement, you would obviously be ok with it.

We are talking about opinions of an event.

However, if someone makes a statement, and then someone else says the statement is an example of " the effect of ideological fanaticism", then they are calling the person an ideological fanatic. Simple logic. Surely only an ideological fanatic would make a statement that is seen as ideological fanaticism?
If I say black people are stupid, this statement is simply an example of the dehumanizing effect of racism , and following your logic , I am not a racist.

Just to make this clear, what then constitutes a racist, a ideological fanatic etc?

If someone wants to call me a c&%t or anything, they should at least grow a pair and say it directly. Moderator or not.

Do I think moderators should not comment on threads under their moderation? Yes. I believe it usually creates a bias. This is my opinion. Some might agree and some might not, so I am not sure what your point is.

[cfimages]

Meanwhile in the ME's leading democracy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501713_162- ... in-israel/

If we applied the same principles to the Jews as we do to Muslims, the report would read something like "Terrorists attack innocent voters", and no mention would be made that the vast majority of Muslims object to such tactics.

Alternatively, in this case we could call for a reformation of Judaism and consider military options or sanctions because the actions of a small minority obviously mean the majority agrees.

No? Didn't think so. And hypocrisy marches on.

[bigduke6]

Could not find the attack on your link?
Can you elaborate? Who was attacked and how many dead?

The latest news on the website I found was from yesterday about the bill where it will make comparisons to Nazis illegal.

[Got To Be Kidding]

Meanwhile in the ME's leading democracy.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501713_162- ... in-israel/

If we applied the same principles to the Jews as we do to Muslims, the report would read something like "Terrorists attack innocent voters", and no mention would be made that the vast majority of Muslims object to such tactics.

Alternatively, in this case we could call for a reformation of Judaism and consider military options or sanctions because the actions of a small minority obviously mean the majority agrees.

No? Didn't think so. And hypocrisy marches on.

WHAT?

You were equating THAT with a bus bombing? Or another act of terrorism?

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. This moral relativism has got to stop.

How can you possibly equate these two?

And yes, having lived in Israel. Not only to other Israelis object, but they take action if the police don't. Israel is a demonstration of how to take care of the extremist elements in your midst.

As I have said before, the biggest difference between Israel and the Arabs, is that Israel puts their idiots in jail, while the Arabs put them in power.

CFI, please. Don't say stuff like that anymore. One can only take so much...