[Nuclear1]

yeah, but the thing is, that analogy completely fails, in both of those situations we would be the ones with splinters in our eyes when the other party is the one with redwoods growing from there eye sockets.

Fair enough.  I guess my point mostly was that, while Nazi Germany gassed the Jews and Iraq slaughtered the Kurds and Shi'ites, they didn't disguise it with some propaganda of "we're the champion of human rights".  In other words, you're worse than the Beast!  At least the Beast doesn't pretend to be righteous!

[PsychoLandlord]

In other words, you're worse than the Beast!  At least the Beast doesn't pretend to be righteous!

Epic reference, sir.

[Grizzly]

yeah, but the thing is, that analogy completely fails, in both of those situations we would be the ones with splinters in our eyes when the other party is the one with redwoods growing from there eye sockets.

The interning of the Japanese was not good. it was the incarceration of a segment of the population based soly on ancestry, but the reasoning, was that we were at war with their previous homeland and that some of them would side with there previous country, as flawed as it was it was absolutely incomparable to rounding up and MURDERING a segment of the population because they were "degenerate filth".

I am not defending the Japanese internment I'm just saying its like comparing apples to cyanide.

Hmm. Didn't that interment also protect the japanese from hate mobs?
Incedently...

[Bobboau]

well, it might have, I'm not aware of if that was one of the stated goals at the time or something someone came up with afterwards to try to sugar coat it.

[Grizzly]

well, it might have, I'm not aware of if that was one of the stated goals at the time or something someone came up with afterwards to try to sugar coat it.

I came up with it afterwards after reading snow falling on cedars.

[Unknown Target]

Because you're flat wrong and need to know it.

Why?

[Dilmah G]

Based on the context, I'd say for the same reasons Battuta thinks so.

[Grizzly]

<Redacted for chillness>

[General Battuta]

Because you're flat wrong and need to know it.

Why?

Can you read?

If the answer is no, why are you posting?

If the answer is yes, why have you not read the several posts already explaining why you're wrong?

If so, why are you willfully disregarding them and refusing to engage in a dialogue?

If you are wilfully disregarding them, why are you not banned?

[Mars]

Woah Woah Woah. . .
Haven't we banned enough people just lately?

[Unknown Target]

I don't think we've banned anyone recently.

General Battuta, I was talking to Scotty, that's why I quoted him and directed the question towards him.

[General Battuta]

I don't think we've banned anyone recently.

General Battuta, I was talking to Scotty, that's why I quoted him and directed the question towards him.

You did indeed quote him and direct the question towards him, and his question was in reference to my post, supporting it. And you asked why he thought you were wrong, which is something that has already been answered for you, multiple times, in this thread.

Are you reading the thread before replying to it? If not, why are you bothering to participate in it? Many hundreds of words have been written by several people to illustrate this point to you, yet you appear unable or unwilling to read them. Why should anyone bother paying attention to you if you cannot perform this basic task?

[Flipside]

Let's have a little less line-dancing with the rules please?

Batt, I'm not quite sure when you turned into a better informed version of Kazaan, but I think I preferred you when you treated people you disagreed with with a bit more respect. I'm not quite sure when this board started handed out badges for acting like a troll, but it's not a direction I personally favour.

[General Battuta]

Don't be ridiculous. I've asked him perfectly reasonable questions regarding an issue the administration itself has stated is grounds for a ban.

Kosh got himself monkeyed for failing to engage with arguments repeatedly presented to him. UT is headed down the same road. If you want me to just let that happen, I think that's pretty amoral. He deserves to be warned.

[Flipside]

I disagree, UT's first comment was something I'd hear in the street any day of the week, "Whatever happened to the England I used to know?". Now, obviously, the correct answer is 'You are living in it', but it's not like it is a particularly un-educated or stupid comment, merely a 'rose tinted spectacles' one. Had you simply replied that the America now is the same America of 50 years ago, that would have been fine, instead you made a whole load of confrontational statements and implied that UT was naive for making the comment.

There are ways of disagreeing that don't involve semi-attacking those you disagree with, for example.

1: "Are you naive?" - "It's not as simple as that"
2 "Can you read?" - "I think you've misinterpreted what I said".

They may seem like simple platitudes, because that's what they are, but it's not just a question of what you say, it's how you say it, that's why I compared you to Kazan, because he also used to attack any point of view that either did not match his own or that he was better informed in by berating the person that said it. It wasn't about whether he was right or wrong, it was about the way he chose to communicate his thoughts.

[General Battuta]

And if he'd responded to those statements when they were originally and politely presented to him, several threads ago, maybe they would be appropriate responses.

But he hasn't in the past. He needs to be pressed. If you haven't followed the whole metadiscussion as it's developed, why get involved?

[Grizzly]

To put it civilly: You are not being civil. Far from it. You are now being corrected for it.

[General Battuta]

I've been perfectly civil with him in the past. When he returns the favor he'll earn the right to be treated civilly again. In the meantime, turnabout is fair play, and as long he continues shockingly rude behavior he'll receive rude treatment.

[Mika]

In the case of this topic, I'm not even sure if UT meant the internal situation of US or the external policy of US. If you ask me, within 60 years the other has indeed become worse in my eyes, while the other has remained the same.

If "Old America" refers to the everyday life for an average person or not is not clear to me from the context and I would suggest UT at least tells what he means with "Old America". Since it seems even Americans themselves disagree with the term, don't expect us foreginers to know what is meant by that then.

My personal opinion is indeed that from 60s to today, some internal things in US have became worse, but how it seems to the layman is another thing.

[Flipside]

But he hasn't in the past. He needs to be pressed. If you haven't followed the whole metadiscussion as it's developed, why get involved?

Because I'm working on the way people behaved, not about their opinions, that's my responsibility as a Moderator, I may not catch everything, but I will deal with what I see. Thing is about meta-discussions is the fact that they are far more important to the people having them than the people who are merely reading them, if I tried to follow every little meta-discussion or ongoing argument on these boards I'd have no time to do anything else.

The rules ask for restraint, in part, because of the fact that not every variable can be taken into account, and therefore the general rule is 'just try to do it politely'.

I can understand how frustrating it is to keep trying to get a message across and not have it understood, but please stop letting it make you angry, or you are just going to end up having a heart attack at a very early stage of life, because I can assure you it's an ongoing theme that will go on for the rest of your life.