> What wasn't okay was that you ignored his entire point for the sake of stating your beliefs. I replied to his iPhone related points first. Both of them. > n

> What wasn't okay was that you ignored his entire point for the sake of stating your beliefs. I replied to his iPhone related points first. Both of them. > not the original post, mind you, but the follow-up. When I posted the follow-up the original was at -4 votes in less than an hour on the first post. The vote-down to view ratio must have been off the charts. I was responding to the down voters. I know it is uncool and all to do this but I guess it must have had an effect. The analogy here is this (in fifties southern US) - Somebody makes a causally racist comment. - I mention in my response that I disagree. - Others express strong but inarticulate disapproval for my comment. - I respond directly and unambiguously why I think racism is wrong. - People seem a little less sure of themselves Re the first comment but they are really pissed at me. - Our hero comes along and chides me for causing such a fuss in a rambling speech. - The crowd erupts into applause. They didn't understand most of the speech or really care about what was said. But there brief encounter with the morality of their lives is over for now. And the person who has caused them discomfort has been put in their place without them (the crowd) having to articulate their own prejudices.