THe comment was relevant and not a personal attack. It was relevant to the history that accompanied my conclusion.
"Such tactics have no place in civilized discourse, and they do nothing to advance scientific understanding. I formally request that the moderators not tolerate this kind of hateful rhetoric."
The given History is not a tactic, nor was the conclusion. Your use of the word hate is also inappropriate, since "hate" was in no way a motivation for the post, or any of it's contents.
Hey, Hey!!! this is a pasta thread. Keep it nice!
You'd think we were on post 2499 on 2500 post Creationist/Evolutionist thread.
Next time think what Rotini would want! Even if you're a Zitiist (I don't agree with them but he's seems like a good egg) ask what Ziti would do.
Remember the Great Collander judges us all!
DK
Oh yeah, sure. Claiming without any basis that someone would countenance torture is not personal.
The given History is not a tactic, nor was the conclusion.
First of all, it was not your historical comments I was referring to. I was referring to your insinuation that religious ID advocates would use torture if they had the chance. Saying such a thing is a debating tactic, albeit a bad one.
But come to think of it, dredging up irrelevant, unsavory 800-year-old events from the history of your opponent's Church is also an innappropriate debating tactic.
Your use of the word hate is also inappropriate, since "hate" was in no way a motivation for the post, or any of it's contents.
Baselessly claiming someone is willing to torture innocent people is hateful under any reasonable definition of the word.
You do not do the cause of advancing scientific understanding any good with such rhetoric.
I urge you to cease and desist.