@mjg59@nondeterministic.computer
I'm not interested in pivoting to that discussion, certainly in this form. I've had enough contact with priests in my life to recognize it for what it is.
What you're doing here is assuming that everyone either shares your metaphysical beliefs or is immoral. This is an extreme form of prejudice, bigotry.
It's certainly fine to attach moral judgement to sharing moral beliefs, e.g. “everyone deserves dignity” — if you don't believe that, people will rightly judge you.
But it becomes bigotry when moral judgement is attached to sharing metaphysical beliefs, like “people have souls”. Even if you believe there's a moral value connected to that metaphysical belief, like if you think: “if people don't believe they have souls, they'll have no reason not to kill one another!” — you *are* bigoted if you assume that people who don't believe in souls are immoral.
This distinction is important. People are entitled to have different metaphysical beliefs than you and they aren't immoral for it. If you start judging them for that, that's just your bigotry.
What you're presenting is clearly a metaphysical belief, not a moral one — there's no inherent moral value to being a man or a woman. You might connect some moral value to that metaphysical belief in your worldview, but that's on you.
So what you're presenting is bigotry, by virtue of saying: either everyone shares my metaphysical belief, or they are immoral.
You're being bigoted.
Stop that.
@rysiek@mstdn.social @darnell@one.darnell.one @lxo@gnusocial.jp
Luke T. Shumaker
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the