r/atheism is that way. We at Less Wrong hold ourselves to a higher standard about where rational discussion is concerned. At a purely selfish level, when posts like the author’s are written that have minimal civility, and responses like this are made, many bystanders will when reading such a response become more sympathetic to the original writer.
Incidentally, you seem to be under a bunch of factual misconceptions or are deliberately ignoring them to be insulting rather than helping yourself or the author become less wrong. In the Beit Shemesh case, the incident in question was caused by charedim (ultra-Orthodox Jews) directed at other Orthodox Jews who were not charedi. Similarly, the act of metitzah b’peh is generally only done by charedim, and even then, not all of them. This second is particularly bad as evidence of your implied claim that the OP has an “utterly and irredeemably evil moral system” in that the practice arose as a codification of medical beliefs in the late Middle Ages and isn’t substantially a moral claim. (Although as frequently happens when a tradition becomes under attack, some practitioners in response have begun see it as a moral issue. This is presumably to help eliminate cognitive dissonance among other matters.)
r/atheism is that way. We at Less Wrong hold ourselves to a higher standard about where rational discussion is concerned. At a purely selfish level, when posts like the author’s are written that have minimal civility, and responses like this are made, many bystanders will when reading such a response become more sympathetic to the original writer.
Incidentally, you seem to be under a bunch of factual misconceptions or are deliberately ignoring them to be insulting rather than helping yourself or the author become less wrong. In the Beit Shemesh case, the incident in question was caused by charedim (ultra-Orthodox Jews) directed at other Orthodox Jews who were not charedi. Similarly, the act of metitzah b’peh is generally only done by charedim, and even then, not all of them. This second is particularly bad as evidence of your implied claim that the OP has an “utterly and irredeemably evil moral system” in that the practice arose as a codification of medical beliefs in the late Middle Ages and isn’t substantially a moral claim. (Although as frequently happens when a tradition becomes under attack, some practitioners in response have begun see it as a moral issue. This is presumably to help eliminate cognitive dissonance among other matters.)