“How can you (correctly) say that what the Canadian government did with its Inuit population was wrong but, at the same time, also state that social services need to exist? Who draw the line between what is acceptable and enforceable and what is not? You?”
Man, you are bad at this. You asked 3 questions. If, of those three questions, one could be called THE question it would be the primary first question on which the others are based. When I dismissed the question on which the others relied for context for being both disgusting and dumb the others get dismissed as well. Notice how when the primary question was dismissed you weren’t demanding an answer to your question of “You?”. That’s because even you were able to realize that without the context established by the actual question that follow on question didn’t have meaning. The follow on question of who gets to draw the line on the fucked up spectrum that you made up in your first question likewise looses its meaning because your fucked up spectrum was dismissed. I didn’t forget the second part of your question. All three are either to be taken together in which case they were all dismissed or the second two are clearly follow-ons which depend on the establishing question to have any meaning. There is no selective editing here just common sense and a basic understanding of english. Now let’s look at how you changed your question.
“My question was, in this spectrum, where would you draw a line between what is acceptable and what is not?”
So in your disgusting imaginary spectrum of social services to sexually abusing and killing children, which was dismissed, you originally asked who would be making the line not where would I make the line. So yes even if we accept that your actual question was the secondary question then you did still actually change it
I’m pretty sure that despising heritage is pretty solid grounds for the label of xenophobia. Honestly.
You get an F on your definition for turning in other people’s work. Do it again in your own words. And no the one you chose to copy doesn’t even begin to cover the things you were ranting about concerning heritage. Nothing in the definition that you copied addresses how heritage only builds walls or has never been used for the betterment of society so it doesn’t encapsulate anything.
“If something forces you to behave or believe a certain way…”
Neither culture nor heritage force you to do that. The made up definition that you didn’t write down includes that but not the real one. Some cultures will apply much more pressure to adhere to a heritage strictly. Some won’t. It’s a dynamic between the two which becomes bad if an authoritarian conservative enforcement is added. Its not this reductive “culture 100% bad no wait I meant heritage 100% bad” business.