71–77 of 77 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are right in regards to Cuba. You are wrong by assuming it’s any better in, say, US.
It’s funny, I live in the US and have been publicly critical of various aspects of the last 7 presidents and no one has jailed me yet for that criticism or even threatened me in any way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
54% of Cuba is in support of polyamorous marriage? Citation please.
Did you just spend lots of time debating me without even taking the 10 minutes necessary to read the article? Wow. This tells a lot about the quality of this discussion. Read the reuters article that was linked. It's all in there. I'm done debating with you, this is just a waste of time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Religiously motivated persecution of sexual minorities isn't just "past few centuries".
"over the past centuries because of religious anachronisms" is your words. Were you lying? YOU were the one that attributed this persecution as 'anachronisms' of 'past centuries.' >Religiously motivated persecution of sexual minorities When did anyone say minorities haven't been persecuted? Total straw man out of left field.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"over the past centuries because of religious anachronisms" is your words. Were you lying? YOU were the one that attributed this persecution as 'anachronisms' of 'past centuries.' >Religiously motivated persecution of sexual minorities When did anyone say minorities haven't been persecuted? Total straw man out of left field.
"Past centuries" and "past few centuries" mean two very different things.
In my parts people rarely use the word 'centuries' to refer to periods larger than 1000 years, and numbers less than 10 are generally ok to think of as a 'few.'
With your follow-up clarification, I amend my statement:
>I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it seems fairy reasonable to assume if a strong pattern emerges across a variety of different disjoint and poorly connected traditional societies with unique religious systems, that the pattern isn't likely to be explained away by simply pointing to recent (past few centuries) religious anachronisms.
TO
I'm willing to be proven wrong, but it seems fairy reasonable to assume if a strong pattern emerges across a variety of different disjoint and poorly connected traditional societies with unique religious systems, that the pattern isn't likely to be explained away by simply pointing to "past centuries" religious anachronisms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s funny, I live in the US and have been publicly critical of various aspects of the last 7 presidents and no one has jailed me yet for that criticism or even threatened me in any way.
Hello Assange? Hello Snowden??
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hello Assange? Hello Snowden??
Hello? Stealing classified information is a crime. Being critical of the government is not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hello? Stealing classified information is a crime. Being critical of the government is not.
When the government behaves worse than a criminal, it is only heroic to expose its crimes. Especially heroic when you know it's a violent, arrogant and vindicative government.
You can certainly create justification around those criminal acts being for the greater good, but that doesn’t mean that they are no longer criminal acts.