Hacker News Reader

Comment by yazzku | Hacker News Reader

Religious flamewar is not allowed on HN. Please don't post like this, regardless of how badly other people have behaved or how strongly you feel about it.

Other kinds of flamewar aren't allowed either, but religious flamewar is particularly bad and particularly avoidable.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Edit: comments like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33003645 are particularly not ok. Please don't do that on HN! we have to ban accounts that post like that and I don't want to ban you.

What I stated is factually correct, unlike the BS from the troll who created an account just to reply to this thread (see the comments under his account). Facts are not allowed on HN when they bother other people?

You're also falsely accusing me of religious flamewar. This has nothing to do with religion; my snarky remark on Jesus not approving was just to show that the Catholic Church bears no moral authority, really since its inception. Let's not even discuss crusades or Spanish genocide in South America. These are simple facts that anyone who has studied history can see for themselves. I obviously mean no disrespect to Jesus or his followers.

It always feels like the other person started it and did worse. From my perspective your comment was just as flamey as the others.

On HN, we want curious conversation. Denunciatory arguments on inflammatory topics are the easiest thing for internet forums to degenerate into, and when they do, curious conversation is quickly destroyed. That's why we have to expend a lot of energy trying to moderate this tendency.

The moderation point doesn't change based on how factually correct your comments here. People bring facts into these flamewars all the time—carefully selected to bolster their side, of course. The other side has its arsenal of facts as well.

From a moderation point of view, it doesn't much matter if the flaming arrows people shoot at each other happen to be made out of fact-wood or some other material. What we want is for users to use HN as intended, and that is something else entirely.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Ok, 'Jesus approves' was unnecessary. But the article is about the Catholic Church aiding in the robbery of babies during the Spanish dictatorship, and I thought it useful to point out that this was not just an isolated data point in the Church's wrongdoing and complete lack of morals, but rather, the Church was a fundamental component in the backbone of the regime. I thought readers would find the background useful.

I appreciate the reply! I think there's room for an argument like that. The only point I'd push back on is "complete lack of morals" - this is again the type of generic/overheated rhetoric that we're trying to avoid here. The rest seems fine.

At some point someone has to expect something Inquisition-like in Spain, right?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto-da-f%C3%A9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spanish_Inquisition_(Monty...

Result of 500 year old Elizabethan propaganda. Actual historical records show that Inquisition persecution was SO lightweight and tolerant that even ordinary criminals tried to get themselves reclassified as religious offenders to be able to get off lightly.

You obviously don't know history, unless 'lightweight persecution' includes torture in your dictionary.

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tomas-de-Torquemada

Ah, Encyclopedia Britannica - the British Empire, having established the Anglican ecclesial community in defiance of Rome, mortal ancient enemies of the Spanish Empire. I'm sure they have no motive to embellish black legends about the Romish Church and English Catholics like St. Thomas More and William Shakespeare were perfectly safe to practice their faith and attend Popish Masses and priests never needed to hide from British authorities. Yeah, totally unbiased source, that Britannica. God save the King.

Please don't take HN threads further into religious flamewar. We ban accounts that do that. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33005581 for more.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Seems fairly accurate in this case. You can also read about it in Wikipedia anyway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%C3%A1s_de_Torquemada

You can see all the references in the article (including but not limited to Britannica).

The Encyclopedia Britannica is a U.S. publication, and has been for well over a hundred years.

There are plenty of Spanish references too. I linked to one the general audience here could read.

The Inquisition had rules around torture. The secular authorities did not.

Revisionist history? The Jews who converted to avoid expulsion and (some of whom) were practicing their religion in secret would like a word.

https://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/2430792/jewis...

Most of these people never actually dug into anything, but just accept the popular idea that the Inquisition tortured millions.

La leyenda negra, is a concept that doesn't reach many people in the anglo-saxon world

It's a lost cause.

The french revolution killed in a couple of years a high multiple of what the Spanish inquisition killed in over a century. Of all the crimes, massacres and genocides of the last centuries, it probably doesn't even register in the top 200.

You can’t compare an uprising against internal occupant (French Revolution) with a genocide (Catholic fascists).

No one ever did, man. No one ever did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com