Heritage does change. It has to. Think about it for even a minute and that becomes obvious. People and tribes and families change over time. If someone from a family of one heritage marries someone from another heritage then the heritage for that lineage going forward has changed. As elements of one heritage become more remote for a family they fade from importance and memory and eventually fade out. Most importantly for you, if heritage is immutable and can’t change then your whole deal about getting rid of the bad parts is impossible. Its a direct contradiction.
“If you want to criticize something direct your criticism to the substance of my definitions” That’s what I’m doing. In your definition you added a nonsense bit about heritage never changing. That is not in the real definition and it is not in anyone else’s working definition. It’s like defining weather as only being when its raining and insisting that weather never changes and is always bad. Your definition is fundamentally flawed.
If science as a culture doesn’t function at a societal level then it doesn’t apply beyond a useless pedantic point.
Even if you despise yourself and your own heritage despising others for their other heritages still sounds pretty xenophobic. Sounds a lot like the guys that say “I’m not racist, I hate everyone”.
No shit I want to get rid of the bad aspects and get rid of the good ones. And because culture and heritage are not what you say they are that is possible to do.
“One last simple question: Do you agree with the idea of removing children from houses where the mafia is seen as an honourable way of living?” depends, are you going to sexually abuse them and murder them? Not like it would do any good since their heritage can’t change.
Your protip was bullshit. Your definition was garbo. Heritage and culture are not frozen in time and they both have good and bad elements and the good ones do benefit society.