I assure you that a significant fraction of the downvotes have absolutely nothing to do with nietzsche* and heidegger and everything to do with your aggressive, idiosyncratic, and emotionally-laden posting style and, to a lesser extent, with the one-sidedness of the content. For example, I have exactly zero emotional attachment to Nietzsche (personal view: from the little I know of him, it seems he did an okay job at identifying various problems with existing systems, but then almost invariably charged off in the least helpful possible direction to "solve" the problem, and regardless, he's essentially irrelevant now), and yet I have found the large majority of your posts on Nietzsche unconstructive to the point where either downvoting or removal seemed appropriate. (I haven't bothered touching them, as far as I recall, since I don't care or know enough about Nietzsche to make a good judgment in the amount of time that I want to spend, but I likely would have had I cared to spend more time on it.)
Because of this, it is very difficult to bury the hatchet, since it seems incredibly likely that you're just going to dig it up again and start swinging it around, possibly without realizing what you're doing.
If you're genuinely interested in trying to contribute to Philosophy.SE--and you seem reasonably perceptive and well-read, so it seems likely that you have the capability--here are a few tips that in my opinion would make a huge difference.
First, note that thinking carefully about things is, for very many people if not everyone, actually really hard to do. It is exceedingly easy to fall victim to confirmation bias and other forms of rationalization (see 5th paragraph). In particular, emotional content inhibits the ability to reason. Therefore, if you are going to make a statement of disapproval where the reader ought to use reason to come to an agreement, there are inadvisable ways to do it:
nietzsche is a moron, a plagiarizing fascist racist moron, and ...
and ways that still convey strong disapproval without battering the poor reader with such intense emotional content:
Although I strongly disagree with Nietzsche's personal views, and do not find his works of intellectual value, ...
The key point here is one does not adopt this tone in order to be a highbrow elitist bourgeois. One does it specifically to aid in the intellectual endeavor, to try to distance oneself from intense emotions that will render the reader (and, very likely, the writer) unable to reason clearly about the content. Worse yet, if the text does have considerable emotional content, after the reader goes off to read something else, they'll still be impaired!
Use simple words or complex ones as you please, but avoid highly emotional language.
Also, keep in mind when you write an answer that you will probably be asking the reader to accept something that you say as true without verifying it. Therefore, it is preferable (though not absolutely required, IMO) to demonstrate an attitude that is consistent with accuracy. For example, if you appear in the grip of strong emotions--e.g. if you were to insist on replacing all instances of "Nietzsche" with "my-least-favorite-so-called-person-nietzsche"**, you would be signaling readers that you're very likely incapable of thinking rationally about anything to do with Nietzsche, and therefore, everything you say regarding him is probably riddled with all sorts of errors, and if what you say has any value at all, the reader will have to check out every single detail him- or herself. What a chore!
Also, if you are aware that people have alternate views, and you disagree, the best way to deal with the alternative viewpoints is to first explain what the views are and then why they are invalid (and, if it helps clarify how to avoid the logical error that was made, where the thinking of those who hold the alternate view likely went amiss).
So, in summary
- Avoid emotionally-charged language.
- Demonstrate an ability to think calmly about the issue at hand.
- Present competing viewpoints and explain their flaws.
and your posts of disapproval will be greatly improved.
That is, write everything more like you wrote this question. (That you were able to do so for this question is why I suspect that at some level you actually know all this.)
Now, back to the question regarding Nietzsche and Marquis de Sade: I think the question is basically fine. However, questions and their answers are supposed to provide a resource, not just be instantiations of personal ego. Therefore, some level of editing is to be not just tolerated but expected and encouraged, as long as it improves the question. (Ego is allowed to the extent that you are allowed to ask your question, not someone else's.) I do hope the changes or lack thereof can be resolved here, but I want to stress that it is not a black and white issue of "get your hands off my post" or "I find the premise faulty so I'm going to edit it".
Faulty premises can be addressed in answers also; some issues of personal style (e.g. if I prefer random indentation of my source code) pose a sufficient barrier to comprehension that they should be fixed even over the preferences of the original poster.
Anyway, I hope this is resolved amicably and quickly, but either way, some substantive changes in style would help considerably going forward.
* Why settle for merely lower case if you're trying to make a point?
** Note that this avoids highly emotional language, but still signals that the poster must be highly emotional about the topic. Also, note that this answers the rhetorical question in (*).