Noticing some of my comments are being down-voted. No problem with opposing opinion or criticism, but when there is a void of space under my comment where your rebuttal should be and my comment was down-voted, I have to think that you just don't like what I am saying.
As I see it, if I've said something inflammatory or if I refuse to debate further beyond talking points, I should accept the fate of the down-vote. I've responded to and debated my points, without name calling, or other negative behaviour.
Your comments are being downvoted because claiming religion is the cause of slavery and all of the worlds ills is so patently silly that people see no reason to refute you in words.
You did say the "sword that is wielded" so I guess you have some realization that it's not the cause, only the effect - but then the rest of your post (and your other ones) go on to try to claim that religion is the cause.
You also don't seem to realize that the moral code you live by (i.e. the things you find OK vs not OK) just by living where you do (things like corporal punishment for adults, debt slavery, age of consent, capital punishment for economic crimes) is basically arbitrary (different countries feel differently about these things without any religious thought getting involved) and to a million mile observer is indistinguishable from a religion.
So calling out religion for giving people a template (as you call it) demonstrates a lack of understanding of both religion and your own thinking - I bet you have strong opinions on all those things I mentioned, and you don't realize your opinion is basically a religious one taught to you as a child.
> Your comments are being downvoted because claiming religion is the cause of slavery and all of the worlds ills
OK. Your claim is my argument sweeps wholesale opinion, but then you make a wholesale opinion of what I meant when I said X. All of the worlds ills? No. Any specific issue? No. A major contributor? Absolutely. I didn't say that a religious-free world would be a slavery-free one. I am saying there would be less slavery overall. Not sure how that could be argued without removing parts of the story.
> You also don't seem to realize that the moral code you live by...
Another assumption.
> is basically arbitrary (different countries feel differently about these things without any religious thought getting involved) and to a million mile observer is indistinguishable from a religion.
You're taking ideals like 'capital punishment' and casting them into a 'religious ideal' for the purpose of comparing them directly. Pretty sure debt slavery, corporal punishment and capital punishment are variable dependant on the state of what you might consider a low wage, or how wrong it is to trade stocks with privileged information. We alter these ideals based on new information. Religion doesn't do this. The book that tells people to behead unbelievers today is the same book from hundreds of years ago. Religion is unyielding and doesn't evolve. Especially the kind that enslaves people. It's pretty absurd for you to suggest religion is as much of a variant as corporal punishment for adults, debt slavery, age of consent, capital punishment - regardless of distance.
> I bet you have strong opinions on all those things I mentioned,
Assumption.
> and you don't realize your opinion is basically a religious one taught to you as a child.
Except if new information is presented that is different than what I believe, I don't ignore it or stick my head in the sand hoping for the 'armageddon/rapture/other ridiculous event' to come to take me away. Facilitating ignorance isn't a strong point.
I didn't vote you down but it you want a critique, I'll oblige.
First, you start off with a promising statement about the correlation between slavery and dictatorship. Unfortunately, your following paragraphs have almost nothing to do with it. You quickly delve into a anti-religion rant which uses a poor metaphor involving Toyota.
I got your point in the end but I'm probably one of the few that made it that far. It's just easier to dismiss you by the third paragraph and down vote. Although I cannot down vote (not enough karma), I don't think I'd up vote you either.
> First, you start off with a promising statement about the correlation between slavery and dictatorship. Unfortunately, your following paragraphs have almost nothing to do with it. You quickly delve into a anti-religion rant which uses a poor metaphor involving Toyota.
If this was a review for a movie, you nailed it. Metaphor definitely not my best. It was an anti-religious rant. Thank you for noting that. Hopefully you'll dive into more detail as to why you feel differently?
> It's just easier to dismiss you by the third paragraph and down vote.
> Hopefully you'll dive into more detail as to why you feel differently?
You didn't ask for why I felt different (to be honest, I don't necessarily), you asked for why you were getting down voted. While sometimes you get down voted for an unpopular view (which I don't think is fair as long as your view makes sense), I felt that you might've been down voted for the lack of clarity in your post.
Then I get down voted for an honest response. Lovely. Sometimes I don't know why I even bother with HN because the karma system is quite a bit of fail. It appears that the early adopters can down vote to their hearts content but those of us who haven't been around as long can only up vote. I would love to know the karma level needed to up vote but that is not anywhere that I have looked (faq, guidelines, etc.).
>> It's just easier to dismiss you by the third paragraph and down vote.
> Nope. Guess not.
I wouldn't be so smug, what you said still might not be good, it just could be the best comment out of a really poor batch. :)
The problem with HN is this. The sport of 1-uping each other to prove something. It's not a matter of being smug, at least not from my perspective. My point is - you either are against group/mob/religion thinking or you're not. If you're for these types of groups be prepared to see your theory through past warm, fuzzy feelings for us westerners. If that wasn't clear, my apologies. But I'm not bowing out because the politically correct view makes me more popular. The politically correct view should be against tolerance of violence through not-so-obvious roots. Instead, we have those who are dancing around the subject rather than addressing it directly.
Isn't it funny that when you come up with a counter argument against violence you end up back at my original point about religion being a force of violence?
As I see it, if I've said something inflammatory or if I refuse to debate further beyond talking points, I should accept the fate of the down-vote. I've responded to and debated my points, without name calling, or other negative behaviour.