Fortunately or unfortunately, this will be my final post directed at you in this forum.
Entirely your choice.
And I'm the only one with the attitude? Don't expect a respectful answer when you're dishing out disrespect.
I can't debate with someone who keeps using attitude against me, gets personal at every opportunity (the entirety of the Islam thread was a case in point) and then threatens me with a banhammer.
A Theist discussion would drag this thread off topic, as such that is an AUP issue and would result in post deletion and possible warnings regardless of who was doing it. We already have a thread to discuss God, this one is not it.
That's not a case of attitude, its an observation based upon the topic of this thread, and bans have not been mentioned at all.
So you're saying Kim-Jong-Un and his forefathers are now the heads of a religious order? Your own favourite research encyclopedia Wikipedia says the belief of majority of North Koreans is 'irreligion'.
Besides, "Most observers of North Korea are quite happy to describe the state of government as one of a 'Cult of personalty' and given that both Messiah and Creation myths exists around the ruling dynasty they are close enough for many" is fraught with hearsay. Who are 'most and who are 'many'?
No I did not state that at all, I made a comprison that a cult of personallity shares many of the same traits as a religion, as for sources that would share the same view they are not exactly thin on the
ground.
I have also posted a link already that illustrates some of the miracles claimed by the ruling dynasty, particularly around the birth of Kim-Jon Il, claims that come directly from North Korea themselves.
All that aside I struggle to see how you could object to North Korea being used as a reference point when discussing Iran and Nuclear Weapons, its a link that has been made repeatedly by the US government themselves.
I repeat again, where did I say only atheists would take issue with that?
Your example specifically cited atheists. If you meant to include other groups then why did you not include them? Or simply say....
"I'm sure
those opposed to nuclear weapons on this forum would be at the gates of the Vatican protesting and scuffling with the Swiss Guard if the Pope was reported to be developing nukes."
...but you didn't, you focused on one specific group in a straw-man argument.
Who decides what examples are taken in this forum? Your indefatigable need to have the last word ends with either you twisting sentences (by either taking them literally or drawing far-fetched conclusions) written by the opposite person or outright warning them.
Peace out.
A discussion is an ongoing process, as such no potential end word need exist, if I want to reply to a point any member has made I will do so, that is after all the point of a discussion forum.
I have also not twisted anyone's sentences, I will however query what exactly is meant by them, which once again is the point of a discussion.
On the question of who decides what gets posted, that would be the staff and I have only ever warned or infracted people who have broken the AUP. As all moderation action is centrally recorded and viewed by the entire staff (including the site owner) if I were using it to bolster my position (as you appear to be claiming) I would no longer hold a position on the staff.
Like I said, only when genocide results in fewer lives lost than the alternative do I support it. That's why I brought up Nagasaki specifically. Hiroshima had training barracks and they might have manufactured weapons there as well (been awhile since I studied and I'm too lazy to google) . Regardless, in either case casualties were overwhelmingly civilian. And I agree that it was justified. But, back to Iran.
