Network, network, network, network, network! (Sorry, I cannot overemphasize this.) You are your own marketing department. All the time. No, you don't have to be one of those Amway pests, but don't be afraid to say what you do and to volunteer your opinion about something computer related. You're not doing it to get business; you're doing it because that's who you are. Even if nothing happens now, it could 6 months later. You never stop networking, no matter how busy you are now.
A few examples:
- Hung out with the same guy at Tuesday night Bible study for 3 years. One day he said, "I heard you tell someone you know something about computers. My company needs software for our factory. Do you know anything about that?" Turned into 50K over the next 6 months.
- Went to an industry dinner/speaker event. The stranger next to me asked what I did. I told him. He asked if I ever did <xyz>. Before I could answer, my partner joked, "That's how we made our first million." The stranger said, "How'd you like to make your second million?" We talked all night and started work 2 days later. 20K in 2 months. All from a joke.
- A contractor friend got a great full time job. She asked me to "take over" her maintenance accounts (3 of them). Many thousands part time over the next 3 years.
- Had another friend who I met for lunch once a month for years. She always talked about her job. One day, she suddenly had to move out of state for personal reasons. I emailed her employer, telling what I did (which was exactly what they had her doing). Turned into 4 years of work.
- Met my aunt's next door neighbor while sitting on her porch. My aunt said, "Eddie's into computers." He said he had a friend who owned a pawn shop with a computer running Windows that "froze" every day at 3:00, their busiest hour. He was going nuts. (Licking my chops), I said I could look into it. A 6 month gig with all new cool software (not Windows).
- Went to a Monday Night Football party. A friend of a friend who owned a small distribution company said the bank wouldn't lend them any more money until they computerized their inventory. After 3 months of me (for $20K), they were able to borrow $300K. Pretty good deal for everyone.
- A friend was offered a 6 month gig in Detroit for $60/hour. He didn't want to move to Detroit. I took it. Got an efficiency for $400/month, drove my own car there, and dialed in to my other clients. 6 months later, moved home. Not a bad deal.
- Had another friend who owned a small software house. (Didn't know it until I knew him for over a year). He coded everything with linked lists because he didn't know anything about databases. I converted all his software to DBMS over a 6 month period. Again, everyone happy.
I could go on and on, but you kinda get the picture. And I haven't even touched on the web stuff.
The demand still far outweighs the supply for good software. If you know what you're doing (a big assumption), there's millions of people who need what you do. So get out there and talk to them!
>He said he had a friend who owned a pawn shop with a computer
Unethical to aid a pawn shop, especially if you are a Christian. But hey, who am I to judge.
Edit: pawn shops are unethical from a Christian viewpoint, as they charge interest. And the parent said he was doing Bible study. But again, who am I to give advice on such topics as an heathen. Just downmod and show me I'm wrong.
Interestingly, the issue was resolved in the 1490s for the Catholic Church with the discovery of the New World. The expeditions required financing and the financing entailed interest. The explorers were painting pictures of golden cities, boundless riches and fountains of youth, somehow the church managed to magically resolve the interest issue.
That was the point I was trying to raise. The Catholic Church was very liberal, when financial interests were at bay. All Western churches inherited its corrupted moral base.
Edit: and the downmods restart. I would like to see some arguments against my remark. Something with more substance, besides obvious re-statements and appeals to number such as 'but everybody does it'. I thought HN visitors would be familiar with proper refutation and rhetoric, and that pg's How to Disagree was by now widely known. BTW, it's here:
http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
I don't know about the merits of the argument; I'll grant you the logic, as most people here would. It's just that people are rightfully fearful of what pro/con religious remarks can have on the quality of conversation here.
If you were trying to raise a point, you utterly failed. On two counts:
a. Your argument was vague and lacked proper distinctions. It was so to the point of being annoying and insulting the intelligence of people with even a vague understanding of history. If you want to make a point, at least be clear about it.
b. It was off topic and out of place. There was a very good discussion on how to make a living off of consulting going on and you had to distract from it with your personal pet peeves with Christians. If you want to start a debate, get your own thread.
Actually, it had more to do with centuries of corruption in the banking system and the eventual realization that prohibitions against 'usury' were a. ill defined and b. unenforceable.
For a history on the subject, read "Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles", by Jesus Huerta de Soto.
Well, the parent could be Jewish and studying the Hebrew Bible. And historically, Jews were able to do very well for themselves because of the Christian's irrational prohibition of loaning money with interest. I didn't know there were many people left that still had such primitive beliefs.
It makes me wonder if you actually believe what you are saying or if you're just saying it to elicit a response. Hopefully it's the second, the first one would be sad.
Really - what is going on here? -29 for some batty comment about Christians and pawn shops? I would have voted it down to -1 too, but come on folks. We've always reserved big downvotes only for offensive, insulting trolls, not things that were in some way "wrong". A -1 or 0 is sufficient to indicate that.
This is not just wrong, but stupid. You don't have to be well versed in Christianity to know that most Christian sects have long since rethought their positions on usury. Most Christians take offense when people insinuate that they still believe in Geocentrism or something like that and this is very similar.
But you are right, the comment is rather batty and I don't think the fellow meant anything by it.
I have watched in both amusement and horror at what's developed below my post from earlier today. Didn't know where else to put this observation, so I thought I'd hang it here if you don't mind, astine.
As one who takes something away from this board every day, I was excited to contribute something from personal experience. Interestingly, this was also the #1 question posed to me over Startup School weekend.
I included these examples (my aunt's front porch, the dinner, and yes, Bible study) to show that business can come from anywhere, anyplace, and at any time, even when you least expect it. As I entered these examples, I wondered what, if any, discussion would ensue. Little did I know...
So today I got 2 big surprises, this thread and a little number deep inside a nested iteration that's been spewing bad data for 2 1/2 years now. What a day.
[Hate to disappoint, but the most interesting thing about the pawn shop project was converting their old data without knowledge of the original author's 25 year old compression algorithm. A subject for another day, I suppose...]
>Most Christians take offense when people insinuate that they still believe in Geocentrism or something like that and this is very similar.
I beg to digress, if you care to discuss it. It is not similar. Geocentrism is a theory of the world and was abandoned in the view of newly discovered undisputable facts. The prohibition on usury is a moral judgement, an axiom of a moral system, not a theory or view of the world, and as such cannot be changed by facts. I thought that difference was obvious. It is furthermore closely related to generosity and the sin of greed. Modern sects have abandoned this prohibition simply for convenience, thus completely changing their moral framework, and they have nothing to do with the original Christians.
I sorry if you misunderstand; of course there is a difference. However, what is similar is what is important. Geocentrism and a strict understanding of usury are both beliefs that Christians once subscribed to, in a world largely devoid of secular people who disagreed, and have since been abandoned. Almost no Christians hold these views anymore. In spite of this, they are still commonly brought up as examples of backwardness by adherents to secularist philosophies that came to exist centuries after these beliefs had been abolished. Neither are any more relevant to a discussion of Christianity in general, than Communism is to secularism in general.
The fact is, Christian moral precepts are a lot more complicated and involved than you seem to believe. The Catholic Church (around which the usury debate is usually framed) has always held the doctrine and our understanding of morals a. develops and b. must be applied to the circumstances.
The fact is, 'usury' is still forbidden, but what in fact entails usury has been greatly refined. It was once assumed that the charging of interest granted the loaner a living that did not depend on him making contributions to society. The dynamics of banking and such have since reassessed and investment has since been shown to very valuable to the growth of an economy. IE., it has been demonstrated that those who loan money, do in fact, contribute through the act of loaning money. Witness the importance of VCs to startups, (arguably of far greater malice than pawn shops. ;))
The thing is, the concerns over which interest was considered wrong, have since been shown to be misplaced. Activities which allow one to profit of of others without contributing are still considered wrong, under similar language, but what constitutes 'usury' is no longer clear cut and is open to debate.
That's the point, he's trying to be an insulting troll, or at least bait the OP. His comment is almost incoherent so it can be misread as some weird guy who hasn't kept up to date on xtian usury prohibitions.
It was trollish and I was trying to bait the OP, in the sense that it was completely off-topic and that I was suggesting the OP was an hypocrite. Which I still believe to be true. Duh. Christianity and usury? I thought it was obvious for everyone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#New_Testament
I would have liked to know how the OP solves the cognitive dissonance between his beliefs and the accepted practices of today's world. I hoped to get an intelligent answer other than the usual 'everybody does it' or 'I could not get by otherwise' fallacies.
Unfortunately, the only thing I learned is that HN threads are not to be taken off-topic. Curiosity is for the weak.
There are prohibitions against usury in the literature of most of the major religions. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Obviously, the contemporary versions of these religions have loosened their positions. Protestants, for example, haven't been seriously opposed to usury for centuries. Islam, however, is still opposed to it. The Muslim world has its own banking system. Would you have made the same comment if the OP hinted that he was Muslim?
I never meant to "hint" at anything. Sorry if that's what got all this started. I was just sharing antecdotes to encourage others to pound the pavement and find good gigs.
I'd be happy to fill in any missing pieces and point out some logical flaws in this thread. Offline please.
"Unfortunately, the only thing I learned is that HN threads are not to be taken off-topic."
Then you learned something that I don't believe is true. HN threads are taken off-topic all the time.
You just took this thread somewhere that most people don't believe belongs on hacker news. That's all.
Politics, religion, sports, and popular culture are areas probably better served elsewhere.
I made the mistake of saying the word "Bible" to illustrate that oppotunities can come from the least expected places. Next time I'll say, "At a group meeting..." Sorry.
I hope your bad mood is from the down votes and not anything anyone said here. I also get frustrated by downvoters who don't comment. I hope you will continue to love HN in spite of this.
Once again, I am willing to continue this discussion off-line. I think the community has made it clear that's where it belongs. This is my last post in this thread. Since I have no other way of contacting you, your move.
This continues to be a troll, but I'll bite. Hopefully in such a way that no one else has to.
Arguing from obviousness about religious beliefs? Come on, people have fought wars over the iota in homoiousious. Arguing from obviousness in interpreting a passage in the New Testament? Learn about hermeneutics. One text, many interpretations, and as many as there are people willing to approach the text authentically.
And let me give you something only a Christian would say, so you can be educated. Bible study is not an end in itself. It is a means to becoming more like Jesus, becoming closer to Jesus. So I take a dim view of arguments that purport to assume a Christian belief and the status quo, then derive a contradiction. These arguments are about the periphery of Christianity. If you want to create some cognitive dissonance, head for the center.
I read that (crappy) Wikipedia article on usury, including the strands of Christian thought that disagree with the non-interpretation of those New Testament passages in the Wikipedia. For instance, the section on the scholastics.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#Usury_in_scholastic_theol...
So instead of taking the reductionist appeal to obviousness and playing word games with quotations that you interpret privately, maybe you can go through the two millennia of source material on the question and offer the definitive breakdown. Send me a link to your dissertation when you're done.
More to the point, this and many other religious beliefs inhere in systems of thought, not random answers to random questions. You just asked, "When did you stop feeling cognitive dissonance about your beliefs?", and I might rightly be skeptical that you even cared about the answer.
You don't understand a religion until you understand it from the perspective of someone who lives it. You don't understand a religious belief unless you locate it in the network of beliefs, the worldview, that it belongs to. And you don't discredit a religion by raising questions about disputable matters.
Every now and then there are comments that elicit a "minus infinity" response. Enough people find his sentiment deeply offensive that it's going to minus infinity.
I'm confused. Has everyonewho has commented on this thread read:http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html ?
If not, take a deep breath and deal with it if a fellow HNer chooses not to pensieri stretti.
"It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter."
It's the atheists that are causing the economy to collapse by buying houses they can't afford and maxing out their credit cards! God is punishing them, finally!!11!
Oh wait, you mean most people in the US identify as Christians, and they're the ones having problems? I see.
Exactly. With a strong emphasis on identify, or make that auto-identify. Like Ghandi, I like Christ, but not Christians. Except, maybe, Eastern Orthodox, but that's another topic.
Seriously - ovi256 is now down to -15 in karma, and (as far as I remember in regard to the modding system) can't even comment anymore. Just because he thinks it's unethical to own a pawnshop. His other comments are fine. Would you PLEASE vote the poor guy up a bit.
I don't mind burning karma doing this, I've got plenty to spare. This is just wrong.
that's a yc urban legend actually, an editor needs to kill your account for it to be killed. It just so happens that by the time someone reaches negative karma an editor has usually killed their account.
Regardless of viewpoint, introducing religion into an online discussion usually results in pointless, voluminous arguments that enrage a few and bore the rest.
Why threadjack when you could've created a separate thread? This guy made a post and you totally are trying to threadjack. Make your own"Ask YC" thread and post it there.
This is how recruiters do it: http://computerconsultants.yuku.com/reply/2987/t/A-fascinati...
In other words, it's more about sales skills than technical ability.
Network, network, network, network, network! (Sorry, I cannot overemphasize this.) You are your own marketing department. All the time. No, you don't have to be one of those Amway pests, but don't be afraid to say what you do and to volunteer your opinion about something computer related. You're not doing it to get business; you're doing it because that's who you are. Even if nothing happens now, it could 6 months later. You never stop networking, no matter how busy you are now.
A few examples:
- Hung out with the same guy at Tuesday night Bible study for 3 years. One day he said, "I heard you tell someone you know something about computers. My company needs software for our factory. Do you know anything about that?" Turned into 50K over the next 6 months.
- Went to an industry dinner/speaker event. The stranger next to me asked what I did. I told him. He asked if I ever did <xyz>. Before I could answer, my partner joked, "That's how we made our first million." The stranger said, "How'd you like to make your second million?" We talked all night and started work 2 days later. 20K in 2 months. All from a joke.
- A contractor friend got a great full time job. She asked me to "take over" her maintenance accounts (3 of them). Many thousands part time over the next 3 years.
- Had another friend who I met for lunch once a month for years. She always talked about her job. One day, she suddenly had to move out of state for personal reasons. I emailed her employer, telling what I did (which was exactly what they had her doing). Turned into 4 years of work.
- Met my aunt's next door neighbor while sitting on her porch. My aunt said, "Eddie's into computers." He said he had a friend who owned a pawn shop with a computer running Windows that "froze" every day at 3:00, their busiest hour. He was going nuts. (Licking my chops), I said I could look into it. A 6 month gig with all new cool software (not Windows).
- Went to a Monday Night Football party. A friend of a friend who owned a small distribution company said the bank wouldn't lend them any more money until they computerized their inventory. After 3 months of me (for $20K), they were able to borrow $300K. Pretty good deal for everyone.
- A friend was offered a 6 month gig in Detroit for $60/hour. He didn't want to move to Detroit. I took it. Got an efficiency for $400/month, drove my own car there, and dialed in to my other clients. 6 months later, moved home. Not a bad deal.
- Had another friend who owned a small software house. (Didn't know it until I knew him for over a year). He coded everything with linked lists because he didn't know anything about databases. I converted all his software to DBMS over a 6 month period. Again, everyone happy.
I could go on and on, but you kinda get the picture. And I haven't even touched on the web stuff.
The demand still far outweighs the supply for good software. If you know what you're doing (a big assumption), there's millions of people who need what you do. So get out there and talk to them!
>He said he had a friend who owned a pawn shop with a computer
Unethical to aid a pawn shop, especially if you are a Christian. But hey, who am I to judge.
Edit: pawn shops are unethical from a Christian viewpoint, as they charge interest. And the parent said he was doing Bible study. But again, who am I to give advice on such topics as an heathen. Just downmod and show me I'm wrong.
Sorry, what? Pawn shops are unethical?
For a Christian, they are, as they charge interest. And the parent said he was doing Bible study.
Very few Christians take that stance on interest today. Most haven't for at least 400 years.
Interestingly, the issue was resolved in the 1490s for the Catholic Church with the discovery of the New World. The expeditions required financing and the financing entailed interest. The explorers were painting pictures of golden cities, boundless riches and fountains of youth, somehow the church managed to magically resolve the interest issue.
That was the point I was trying to raise. The Catholic Church was very liberal, when financial interests were at bay. All Western churches inherited its corrupted moral base.
Edit: and the downmods restart. I would like to see some arguments against my remark. Something with more substance, besides obvious re-statements and appeals to number such as 'but everybody does it'. I thought HN visitors would be familiar with proper refutation and rhetoric, and that pg's How to Disagree was by now widely known. BTW, it's here: http://www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html
I don't know about the merits of the argument; I'll grant you the logic, as most people here would. It's just that people are rightfully fearful of what pro/con religious remarks can have on the quality of conversation here.
If you were trying to raise a point, you utterly failed. On two counts:
a. Your argument was vague and lacked proper distinctions. It was so to the point of being annoying and insulting the intelligence of people with even a vague understanding of history. If you want to make a point, at least be clear about it.
b. It was off topic and out of place. There was a very good discussion on how to make a living off of consulting going on and you had to distract from it with your personal pet peeves with Christians. If you want to start a debate, get your own thread.
Actually, it had more to do with centuries of corruption in the banking system and the eventual realization that prohibitions against 'usury' were a. ill defined and b. unenforceable.
For a history on the subject, read "Money, Bank Credit, and Economic Cycles", by Jesus Huerta de Soto.
Well, the parent could be Jewish and studying the Hebrew Bible. And historically, Jews were able to do very well for themselves because of the Christian's irrational prohibition of loaning money with interest. I didn't know there were many people left that still had such primitive beliefs.
It makes me wonder if you actually believe what you are saying or if you're just saying it to elicit a response. Hopefully it's the second, the first one would be sad.
Come on guys - modding down is OK, but -12? It's an opinion, not a charge on someones children.
Wow, I'm surprised too. I'm betting it's not the normal crowd -- or it has grown much larger over the past month?
Really - what is going on here? -29 for some batty comment about Christians and pawn shops? I would have voted it down to -1 too, but come on folks. We've always reserved big downvotes only for offensive, insulting trolls, not things that were in some way "wrong". A -1 or 0 is sufficient to indicate that.
This is not just wrong, but stupid. You don't have to be well versed in Christianity to know that most Christian sects have long since rethought their positions on usury. Most Christians take offense when people insinuate that they still believe in Geocentrism or something like that and this is very similar.
But you are right, the comment is rather batty and I don't think the fellow meant anything by it.
I have watched in both amusement and horror at what's developed below my post from earlier today. Didn't know where else to put this observation, so I thought I'd hang it here if you don't mind, astine.
As one who takes something away from this board every day, I was excited to contribute something from personal experience. Interestingly, this was also the #1 question posed to me over Startup School weekend.
I included these examples (my aunt's front porch, the dinner, and yes, Bible study) to show that business can come from anywhere, anyplace, and at any time, even when you least expect it. As I entered these examples, I wondered what, if any, discussion would ensue. Little did I know...
So today I got 2 big surprises, this thread and a little number deep inside a nested iteration that's been spewing bad data for 2 1/2 years now. What a day.
[Hate to disappoint, but the most interesting thing about the pawn shop project was converting their old data without knowledge of the original author's 25 year old compression algorithm. A subject for another day, I suppose...]
>Most Christians take offense when people insinuate that they still believe in Geocentrism or something like that and this is very similar.
I beg to digress, if you care to discuss it. It is not similar. Geocentrism is a theory of the world and was abandoned in the view of newly discovered undisputable facts. The prohibition on usury is a moral judgement, an axiom of a moral system, not a theory or view of the world, and as such cannot be changed by facts. I thought that difference was obvious. It is furthermore closely related to generosity and the sin of greed. Modern sects have abandoned this prohibition simply for convenience, thus completely changing their moral framework, and they have nothing to do with the original Christians.
I sorry if you misunderstand; of course there is a difference. However, what is similar is what is important. Geocentrism and a strict understanding of usury are both beliefs that Christians once subscribed to, in a world largely devoid of secular people who disagreed, and have since been abandoned. Almost no Christians hold these views anymore. In spite of this, they are still commonly brought up as examples of backwardness by adherents to secularist philosophies that came to exist centuries after these beliefs had been abolished. Neither are any more relevant to a discussion of Christianity in general, than Communism is to secularism in general.
The fact is, Christian moral precepts are a lot more complicated and involved than you seem to believe. The Catholic Church (around which the usury debate is usually framed) has always held the doctrine and our understanding of morals a. develops and b. must be applied to the circumstances.
The fact is, 'usury' is still forbidden, but what in fact entails usury has been greatly refined. It was once assumed that the charging of interest granted the loaner a living that did not depend on him making contributions to society. The dynamics of banking and such have since reassessed and investment has since been shown to very valuable to the growth of an economy. IE., it has been demonstrated that those who loan money, do in fact, contribute through the act of loaning money. Witness the importance of VCs to startups, (arguably of far greater malice than pawn shops. ;))
The thing is, the concerns over which interest was considered wrong, have since been shown to be misplaced. Activities which allow one to profit of of others without contributing are still considered wrong, under similar language, but what constitutes 'usury' is no longer clear cut and is open to debate.
That's the point, he's trying to be an insulting troll, or at least bait the OP. His comment is almost incoherent so it can be misread as some weird guy who hasn't kept up to date on xtian usury prohibitions.
It was trollish and I was trying to bait the OP, in the sense that it was completely off-topic and that I was suggesting the OP was an hypocrite. Which I still believe to be true. Duh. Christianity and usury? I thought it was obvious for everyone. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#New_Testament
I would have liked to know how the OP solves the cognitive dissonance between his beliefs and the accepted practices of today's world. I hoped to get an intelligent answer other than the usual 'everybody does it' or 'I could not get by otherwise' fallacies.
Unfortunately, the only thing I learned is that HN threads are not to be taken off-topic. Curiosity is for the weak.
There are prohibitions against usury in the literature of most of the major religions. Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Obviously, the contemporary versions of these religions have loosened their positions. Protestants, for example, haven't been seriously opposed to usury for centuries. Islam, however, is still opposed to it. The Muslim world has its own banking system. Would you have made the same comment if the OP hinted that he was Muslim?
I never meant to "hint" at anything. Sorry if that's what got all this started. I was just sharing antecdotes to encourage others to pound the pavement and find good gigs.
I'd be happy to fill in any missing pieces and point out some logical flaws in this thread. Offline please.
"I would have liked to know how the OP solves the cognitive dissonance between his beliefs and the accepted practices of today's world."
All you ever had to do was ask.
My email address in is my profile.
I prefer discussion on a public forum such as HN, where other people can contribute.
"Unfortunately, the only thing I learned is that HN threads are not to be taken off-topic."
Then you learned something that I don't believe is true. HN threads are taken off-topic all the time.
You just took this thread somewhere that most people don't believe belongs on hacker news. That's all.
Politics, religion, sports, and popular culture are areas probably better served elsewhere.
I made the mistake of saying the word "Bible" to illustrate that oppotunities can come from the least expected places. Next time I'll say, "At a group meeting..." Sorry.
>Politics, religion, sports, and popular culture are areas probably better served elsewhere.
I know it perfectly well, and usually I love HN exactly because of it, but right now I'm in too much of a bad mood to appreciate it.
I hope your bad mood is from the down votes and not anything anyone said here. I also get frustrated by downvoters who don't comment. I hope you will continue to love HN in spite of this.
Once again, I am willing to continue this discussion off-line. I think the community has made it clear that's where it belongs. This is my last post in this thread. Since I have no other way of contacting you, your move.
This continues to be a troll, but I'll bite. Hopefully in such a way that no one else has to.
Arguing from obviousness about religious beliefs? Come on, people have fought wars over the iota in homoiousious. Arguing from obviousness in interpreting a passage in the New Testament? Learn about hermeneutics. One text, many interpretations, and as many as there are people willing to approach the text authentically.
And let me give you something only a Christian would say, so you can be educated. Bible study is not an end in itself. It is a means to becoming more like Jesus, becoming closer to Jesus. So I take a dim view of arguments that purport to assume a Christian belief and the status quo, then derive a contradiction. These arguments are about the periphery of Christianity. If you want to create some cognitive dissonance, head for the center.
I read that (crappy) Wikipedia article on usury, including the strands of Christian thought that disagree with the non-interpretation of those New Testament passages in the Wikipedia. For instance, the section on the scholastics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#Usury_in_scholastic_theol...
So instead of taking the reductionist appeal to obviousness and playing word games with quotations that you interpret privately, maybe you can go through the two millennia of source material on the question and offer the definitive breakdown. Send me a link to your dissertation when you're done.
More to the point, this and many other religious beliefs inhere in systems of thought, not random answers to random questions. You just asked, "When did you stop feeling cognitive dissonance about your beliefs?", and I might rightly be skeptical that you even cared about the answer.
You don't understand a religion until you understand it from the perspective of someone who lives it. You don't understand a religious belief unless you locate it in the network of beliefs, the worldview, that it belongs to. And you don't discredit a religion by raising questions about disputable matters.
Every now and then there are comments that elicit a "minus infinity" response. Enough people find his sentiment deeply offensive that it's going to minus infinity.
I'm not sure if people found his sentiment offensive or are just opposed to blatantly off-topic trolling.
A little of both I suspect.
I'm confused. Has everyonewho has commented on this thread read:http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html ? If not, take a deep breath and deal with it if a fellow HNer chooses not to pensieri stretti.
Yup, bunch of closed minded people who are jerks.
"It should be noted that no ethically-trained software engineer would ever consent to write a DestroyBaghdad procedure. Basic professional ethics would instead require him to write a DestroyCity procedure, to which Baghdad could be given as a parameter."
http://www.guppylake.com/~nsb/pithy.html
:-) [This is a joke. I have no comment about the issue being discussed.]
So Christians don't use credit cards?
It's the atheists that are causing the economy to collapse by buying houses they can't afford and maxing out their credit cards! God is punishing them, finally!!11!
Oh wait, you mean most people in the US identify as Christians, and they're the ones having problems? I see.
>most people in the US identify as Christians
Exactly. With a strong emphasis on identify, or make that auto-identify. Like Ghandi, I like Christ, but not Christians. Except, maybe, Eastern Orthodox, but that's another topic.
Who's Ghandi? I am only aware of someone named Gandhi.
Yes, they do, but the subtle thing is that they should not.
Seriously - ovi256 is now down to -15 in karma, and (as far as I remember in regard to the modding system) can't even comment anymore. Just because he thinks it's unethical to own a pawnshop. His other comments are fine. Would you PLEASE vote the poor guy up a bit.
I don't mind burning karma doing this, I've got plenty to spare. This is just wrong.
that's a yc urban legend actually, an editor needs to kill your account for it to be killed. It just so happens that by the time someone reaches negative karma an editor has usually killed their account.
OK thanks for clearing it up. I just hope that ovi256 doesn't get his account killed because of this.
He should be ok, the editors are relatively benevolent.
Don't feel too bad about it. If ovi256 really can't comment, ovi257 can pick up the usury/pawnshop debate where he left off.
I agree, but I'm not at all surprised.
The history of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury is actually pretty neat.
Regardless of viewpoint, introducing religion into an online discussion usually results in pointless, voluminous arguments that enrage a few and bore the rest.
Why threadjack when you could've created a separate thread? This guy made a post and you totally are trying to threadjack. Make your own"Ask YC" thread and post it there.