Well, hello ;)
I like to write stuff that makes people think, and it seems to be the case here, as evidenced by people taking the time to start a thread commenting my post. This is quite the honor!
To be honest, I was surprised the answer was not censored sooner. But it achieved its purpose, so everything's fine on my book.
I could plead the fact that I'm French, and thus every offending thing I said could be due to my bad English... but that would be the easy way out, so I won't. Although some culture shock may have been involved in the events, as evidenced by some heated reactions.
Now, please don't think I was angry or lashing out or anything of the sort. This wasn't the case.
Important point: I speak bluntly because I don't want to lose my time or the readers' by wrapping it in pretty fluff. We're all adults, I presume. Please don't mistake this for rudeness.
Now, answering MacKenzie,
A question was asked about someone with X (not important for discussion) beliefs
This hits the ground running.
This sentence entirely misses the point. The beliefs of the person we're talking about, were the starting point of the conflict between her and the asker, and are thus very much relevant here, in fact they were the core of the question.
Now, perhaps you will argue for moral relativism: all belief systems are equal and worthy of consideration, and one should not criticize others' beliefs.
Thus, I use logic: you shall not criticize my belief system, since you just preached it is as good as any other... The problem with moral relativism is that, if you are true to yourself, then you got to walk out of the debate because (by definition) this philosophy does not allow you to pick a side.
There is no escape to this argument, barring hypocrisy. This is why I don't do moral relativism.
Example 1: Person A likes orange and curry, person B likes blue and steak.
Both are right, these are subjective opinions. This is not moral relativism, merely personal subjective taste. Unless a vindicative Vegan chooses to bring morals in by lecturing B about being such a bad person.
(Note: we're talking food tastes and already there is a fight).
Example 2: Person A likes carrots and classical music, while person B favors processed fat, high fructose corn syrup, punk rock and cocaine.
Both are right... unless the law forces person A to pay for B's healthcare (and lets B mug A for a shot of coke), in which case we have a problem.
We still haven't begun to tickle some serious politics, and already people are punching each other.
Some belief systems are okay, some are wrong, some are evil. It is alright to say it, because it is true. I prefer to use objective, factual and verifiable historical records like number of murders, standards of living, condition of women, etc.
For example, looking at historical data, fascism and communism kinda look bad. So do most religions. Western democracy looks pretty good, and so do others.
Clarification: if someone tells me "you should not judge" then I will do them a favor, and pretend to be a sincere nazi for the next five minutes so they can practice their "not judging" attitude. I have found this very effective and fun, although it has a cost, as I then have to drink unhealthy amounts of alcohol to forget the things I had to say while pretending to be a nazi. In case you have any doubts, I despise this ideology.
I'm trying not to be biased against the beliefs of the answerer, and all the people who have upvoted it.
Now switching to English Student:
what concerns me most, relative to your this meta question, is the fact that that answer got so many upvotes
Thank you for considering hard facts. I like hard facts because they can prove me wrong, and then I learn something new.
This is the community saying that this person has written a very good answer
Now, we're hitting an interesting point.
But this upvoting pattern is what worries me. Clearly we are not casting enough downvotes.
I agree. As you said, through their votes, people expressed they liked my answer. However, you disagree with them, which you are entitled to, no problem here, and no offense.
But you then miss a step by saying "Clearly we are not casting enough downvotes;" This does not consider why people upvoted, and would rather be a "sweeping under the rug" strategy. Also, upvotes earn me +10, while downvotes cost me much less, so overall my reputation still profits.
So, by writing this, my reputation increased, by a lot. Quite interesting.
I advise you make the next step, and attempt to understand why so many people upvoted, in fact enough of them to shoot this into the "Hot Network Questions", which was quite fun to watch.
I know why they upvoted. I engineered the reply specifically to trigger such reactions, and it worked as designed. I would explain now, but I'd like you to really understand why, and the best way to achieve this is to request you use the scientific method: propose any hypothesis, and I'll update/comment.