" For example, Christians believe in the Trinity"...
...because of the bible or in other words the holy book
as is the case with all of the beliefs
Clearly you didn't listen to me before about the Bible not being canon until recently. Christians were just a body of people for the longest time. They had letters from Paul, but they weren't a Bible until fairly recently.
"Yeah you continue to make me think you don't know how implying works, so I won't waste my time."
making assertions is easy... but backing them up? well that's something else entirely
"She specifies Muslims, yes, but there's not much substance there that's actually critical of the specific values"
you expected an essay on twitter where communication is restricted to 140 characters?
Yeah, that's one reason I hate Twitter. So much public discourse happens there, but you just can't have an in depth discussion with 140 characters at a time.
"Yep. Not in an absolute sense, obviously, but in an "this is what they used to try to justify it in this case" kind of way."
i've never seen women talk about their preferences for men with money and say "well my culture told me to get a rich guy so i did"
if anything its the opposite where in some cases women pretend to be with a guy for something more than his money because they fear shame from people labeling them as gold diggers or shallow
Lol that's not how culture works dude.
"Not necessarily that, just any problem caused by a societies values."
i've said it before and i'll say it again if you're only ready to accept that this is caused by socialisation(which seems to be the case) you're in for a lot of disappointment
Not sure what you mean. But okay.
", it becomes a problem if the society struggles as a result of a cultural trend within it, with Japan's demographic problems just being one example."
if japan collapses as a country to ensure women's rights then i think its a worthy sacrifice
imo women's rights are more important than japan
Not sure why you think I was suggesting Japan had to stop women's rights.
"Nope. Because it wouldn't have representatives, but be a direct democracy."
and how does this work exactly? 300 million people vote on every single bit of legislation?
you then go on to demonstrate imo that you don't understand what democracy is and i'm not bothering to go there with you, the information is there for you to access if you want
but disregarding that what then do you call a political system where the majority choose what policies are put into place? you are claiming its not democracy so what it is then?
Democracy doesn't have to be by majority dude. It can set up its own rules. Like on a smaller scale, you and your friends could agree that you will only go to a restaurant to eat if 3/4s of you agree on the restaurant. That's still democracy, it just has additional rules. And no, 300 million people wouldn't vote on legislation. Direct democracy would require incredible amounts of technology, some of which we don't have yet. I still want it though. I'll just have to wait until the technology catches up.
"Emotions. Probably fear specifically. That's usually why people vote to harm themselves in the long run. Example? Well imagine if they voted to make what Candace did illegal (aka, if they make it illegal to express her opinion if someone uses it as reason to do something else illegal), and to make it legal to lay the blame on her for the massacre? Hence why you'd have a constitution that prevented them from acting on emotion without thinking out the consequences."
if you took away the element of fear from voting, i expect voting patterns would change entirely, i don't think you are acknowledging how big of an effect it has already
Duh. That's what I'm saying. I swear, it's like you go out of your way to find a way to portray yourself as disagreeing with me, and you sometimes can't do it.