3 ms·

> I think the main statement at the beginning of your comment is that they were and are exclusionary. Now I'm wondering if you read my previous comment. I alre

> I think the main statement at the beginning of your comment is that they were and are exclusionary. Now I'm wondering if you read my previous comment. I already stated: all things are defined by what they include and exclude. Excluding and including is amoral. It only takes on a moral character when you consider what is being included or excluded and why. Being "less exclusionary" could be bad, depending on your perspective! I asked you to be more specific, and you chose not to do so, although I can probably guess what you mean, I will instead wait on you to be explicit. > Hmm. I'm not sure religion mostly spread by being as welcoming as possible to everyone. It's also not relevant. Inclusivity and welcomeness are not the same thing. Christianity is inclusive because it posits every human to be a child of an all-powerful God, having instrinsic worth, and the capacity to be saved and exalted by that God. While conquest definitely played a part in the religion's expansion, it certainly isn't the only factor or even the primary factor. > You call it an obvious thing yet ignore it in the following sentence. No. No, I didn't. And the rest of your final paragraph doesn't make any more sense to me. For instance, I never said there had to be a primary emotion. I did, however, suggest that there should be one, at least relative to the subject of organs, specifically organ production and access.

IanCal 4y ago
> Now I'm wondering if you read my previous comment. I already stated: all things are defined by what they include and exclude. Excluding and including is amoral. Yes I did, and at no point did I even assign a moral value to the exclusion because it's not relevant. Even the original poster didn't. It can be necessary for the group, inherent in groups, whatever. You don't need to argue around the balance of good Vs bad and can leave it at simply "this part in isolation is a shame". That's it. It's not a big revelation, or shouldn't be, but it may help you with not reacting like such a simple statement is an attack on a larger part of your identity. > No. No, I didn't. And the rest of your final paragraph doesn't make any more sense to me You called it obvious yet didn't understand it. This isn't Reddit and I don't want to contribute in turning it into that, if you don't want to read my banal points then don't - I have nothing to win or lose here. If you want to try and understand I think I've framed it as best as I can, so try reading it without assuming it's an attack, responding further after a few misunderstandings is futile because either I can't explain it to your further satisfaction. Much like the balance of emotions, there does not need to be some winning think out of this.

IanCal 4y ago

> Now I'm wondering if you read my previous comment. I already stated: all things are defined by what they include and exclude. Excluding and including is amoral. Yes I did, and at no point did I even assign a moral value to the exclusion because it's not relevant. Even the original poster didn't. It can be necessary for the group, inherent in groups, whatever. You don't need to argue around the balance of good Vs bad and can leave it at simply "this part in isolation is a shame". That's it. It's not a big revelation, or shouldn't be, but it may help you with not reacting like such a simple statement is an attack on a larger part of your identity. > No. No, I didn't. And the rest of your final paragraph doesn't make any more sense to me You called it obvious yet didn't understand it. This isn't Reddit and I don't want to contribute in turning it into that, if you don't want to read my banal points then don't - I have nothing to win or lose here. If you want to try and understand I think I've framed it as best as I can, so try reading it without assuming it's an attack, responding further after a few misunderstandings is futile because either I can't explain it to your further satisfaction. Much like the balance of emotions, there does not need to be some winning think out of this.