It is definitely Not an "I got more points than you - nyaah, nyaah."
(At least I hope not.)

P.S. You have had several "0"s and I up voted you back to "1" due to the merit of your discourse.

MichaelA: Not sure if I understand your comment.
Let's see- if you have "1" point and I down vote you you go to "0". If, however, you have "3" up votes and I down vote you you go to "2" up votes losing a point. Am I missing something? Let me know.

One cannot be an Objectivist and hold any religious view. A religious Objectivist is a contradiction in terms.

If I'm sure something is wrong, I comment on it. Voting a comment is not the proper way to make your point as it doesn't add anything to the discussion. I occasionally upvote a comment if I think it adds materially to the discussion at hand. I rarely downvote; mostly if the comment is a) far afield or b) obnoxious.

Slick Willie used to go jogging with his Secret Service
guys, and he would pass a street corner where....... -- j
.

You are doing fine. :)

:) More shorthand...

Thank you OA, and to all the others above who have weighed in with informative posts ! I don't know how to thank each one without it becoming cumbersome, but I loved reading each person's insights on how this forum is a helpful vehicle for advancing analysis and expanding all angles of social discourse rather than restricting it like we sadly see happening on our college campuses today.
I feel encouraged !

Sound to me like a jr. high school concern. Who cares who gets the most votes? I certainly don't.

Bethesda-gal: I am so used to seeing the (-) next to my comments as well as many of the others that I quit trying to understand the why. At first I went by exclusion using different parameters but nothing held true. The popular got down voted, the constants got down voted, obvious objectivist responses got down voted, and even pertinent Rand quotes got down voted... I call it the "Holy Gulch Ghost". If the majority comments on any given post are always down voted then it either should mean something (what?) or it means nothing (with exception to those who down vote and state why). In the case of a "fire storm" on a hot posting where positions are taken based on fundamental objectivist reasoning then up and down votes do indicate that purpose and is understandable.
That being said, and the few times I have seen it, I certainly respect those that have "owned" their down vote and given their reasons. This is positive feedback (even if a down vote) and creates an atmosphere for growth and sharing of ideas.
Stay the Course Bethesda-gal! It's definitely worth it.

Hello Bethesda-gal,

I generally vote using the same criteria as richrobinson. I do occasionally down-vote things based on two criteria. 1. The comment is rude and/or adds nothing constructive to the discussion or 2. I disagree strongly with the comment and have nothing more to add. In this fashion it is simply shorthand. If I have something to add I will do that also.
I do try to avoid down-votes as much as possible and will also up-vote things I believe deserve attention even when I disagree. It is a mixed bag, but I also feel that there is sometimes too much made of the vote count; it is a sum of several factors. so it is not just a reflection of the popularity of your comments. It also reflects your total output and participation.

Some let emotion rule and give too much weight to these numbers when it is clear that some of the best comments and most profound observations sometimes come from those with lower total points. A poor score on any particular comment should not be thought of as a general personal attack. If you stick with it and avoid ad-hominem your score will reflect your efforts over time and commitment, more than anything else.

Respectfully,
O.A.

I rarely down-vote. In fact, if I want my comment to be "heard" I upvote a comment I am responding to, even if I disagree. My husband loves to down vote. We are all individuals here :)

I prefer my own approach. I collect "shits" rather than points and even when upvoted or downvoted - I refuse to give any of them.

I save my down votes for people who are being intentionally antagonistic. One can have a rational debate about a lot of things and remain objective even while debating both sides. What unfortunately seems to happen on some topics (religion, abortion, atheism vs theism, etc.) is that people claiming to be "objective" about the matter instead resort to ad hominem attacks (name-calling) and other logical fallacies.

People are going to disagree in matter of philosophy. And that's because no one has a perfect knowledge - supposition is the prime ingredient to scientific inquiry. I don't typically down vote people for disagreeing, however, but for being disagreeable.

now, Michael. . should we not consider the traditional
"sin" category as an area rife (sic) for study as well? . my wife and I.......
there are some things which are not sin but are labeled so.
see? . like the joke whose punch line is:::
"See, That's What You Get For Twenty Bucks!" -- j
.

isn't it kinda like saying "bless you" when someone sneezes?
it's a courtesy response to someone's sponse!!! -- j
.

Did I understand you correctly: you down-voted my answer because you disagree? Too bad you can't down-vote the FAQ that explains the same thing.

But I don't think you understood me. Of course I encourage you to give honest feedback. I just don't think that up/down-voting is always the proper way to do this. The best way is to leave a comment expressing your feedback, engaging in the discussion, like you did here. But voting should be reserved for questions like: is this worth seeing? is it constructive to the topic at hand? I suggest that if you found it worth engaging in discussion, then it is worth other people seeing too. There have been many times that I answered in disagreement but up-voted, because I want other people to see it and engage in it too. This is an example (I up-voted your comment).

I've seen too many constructive comments buried way down at the end of a post, just because people didn't like it. I might not agree with them either, but I don't come to this forum to be cuddled and only see things that I agree with, or to protect others from seeing them. I come here to learn, to be challenged, to stretch my mind, and come to a better understanding of what I believe and how to state it. But more and more people here just want a one-sided debate, and so vote-down anything they dislike or disagree with, or even worse, they've been spending too much time on Facebook and treat this like a popularity contest.

I've seen lots of name-calling up-voted. Comments like, "I agree," should not be up-voted to the top of a discussion, but that happens. Rather than such juvenile and trite additions being the first thing on the list, I'd rather see substance. I want to see both sides of an issue, but often times this is difficult.

You may be "sure" something "is quite wrong," but some of us are still interested in learning new ideas, seeking to understand other arguments. Your method of voting makes this harder.

With regards to hot-button topics it may be affected by there being a lack of a purely objective solution. Religion is by definition not an objective topic and among the highly religious it can overwhelm one's objectivity.

If we accept the premise that an Objectivist is more intelligent than not we could hypothesize he or she is capable of holding conflicting notions in their mind at the same time. For example one could see that objectively speaking a fetus is not a born human being but personally and emotionally believe they should be treated as such. These are objectively conflicting notions at their core, but an intelligent person is able to know the former while believing the latter. They are conflicting but not mutually exclusive. Alternatively there is no objective evidence for the god of today's religions yet Objectivists may still want to believe in one and hold a religious belief of such.

However, even keeping conflicting notions in the same mind, where one is kept by emotional causes, management of the dissonance produced by this can slip and result in emotion winning out in the case of argumentation. We certainly should be abel to have thick skin (I personally spent a long time investing in such), but that doesn't mean we have to tolerate blatantly insulting or ignorant behavior, hence down voting under such circumstances is appropriate.

Ultimately even Objectivists are human. ;)

I think you are referring to the post about Ben Carson creating a religious theocracy. Religion is not a subject I know a lot about and I generally avoid commenting on those posts. It brings out some very strong emotions and the voting reflects that. I do feel that some Gulchers go outside the guidelines when it comes to posts about religion. We have had discussions in the past about requiring a reply in order to down vote but it is still up to the individual.