fukurthumz420

it's anti science, it's dangerous, and i won't condone anyone giving them a pass

didn't give up. i just don't think you were arguing in good faith. what reason do you have to defend religion?

which one is more likely to cause bigotry?

nope.

well good luck legislating effective education within the context of a christian nation.

No, I’m here right now.

not really. i'm ending this bad faith argument. enjoy yelling at clouds.

obviously there are exceptions to every rule. if big bertha comes at me with a giant ham fist, she might get hit back, but in the vast majority of cases, the male is physically dominant and therefore has a duty to use that power responsibly.

and yes, i advocate rounding up and exiling people that stand as obstacles to a better world. what's your solution?

so you have no solutions but want to criticize everyone else's. got it. come back when you've shed your edge lord skin.

even them. we're a global society now. unless a group of people wants to live completely disconnected from the rest of the world, we cannot proceed as a global society if we're not all on the same page.

EDIT: keeping traditions and preserving a cultural heritage is not the same as believing and abiding by a non-scientific set of beliefs. there are nuances to your question, but i provided a non-nuanced answer.

Now for the alternative solution:

According to Pettigrew and Tropp (2008), the three main ways of reducing prejudice against a group is through increasing understanding of that group, lessening anxiety about the group, and improving empathy towards that group, with the second two being stronger factors. Contact with the group accomplishes all three. This is supported anecdotally by tales of bigots changing their positions when they found out their own loved ones were gay.

One should note that a lack of empathy and high levels of anxiety about boogeymen are the hallmarks of a conservative worldview.

Therefore, combatting homophobia is best done through increasing visibility, which is the function of “outness” and pride parades, and through combatting conservativism and the reactionary gender roles that led to the birth of homophobic attitudes in the first place. This would in turn entail a battle against class society in general, but that is a discussion for another time.

do you think this approach is easier within the context of a religious society or a secular one? the beginning of your statement opens with "while rooted in religious doctrine".

i'm sorry, but you have an inherent bias towards secular society as a russian emmigrant. you grew up in an authoritarian society masked as a secular one. you should at least acknowledge this. it might not discredit you to say so.

power doesn't automatically equal selfishness. you can take it away from them and do something that is good for all of humanity with it.

well, at the risk of turning you away from understanding my point, i've decided that i'd like to hurl insults back: you come off as extremely short sighted and obtuse.

i agree with "don't hit people", but if you think a woman hitting you justifies you hitting her back and you're male, you're a piece of shit. restrain? sure. defend your own life by any means necessary? sure. but if your ego can't take getting slapped by a woman, you might be a fucking incel.

progressive and gentleman are not exclusive concepts. gender is asymmetrical balanced. men and women are not perfectly equal. they are asymmetrically equal. understand the difference, and understand that if i see you hit a woman in retaliation, i'm going to remove some of your teeth, punk.