“Maybe not but it does prove that people who believe in heritage will go out of their way to keep it alive and unchanged as much as possible.” Oopsie you just admitted that heritage changes.
“Progressives, who usually try to eliminate heritage by moving society to a new set of standards via legislation” Progressives don’t try to eliminate heritage.
Its not that heritage is inclined to evolve. Heritage must evolve by the very nature of what it is. Heritage includes the changes that occur in societies and families over time. And time continues forward. Heritage is not static unless you make up a completely wrong definition of heritage. Heritage is additive in that way. When ol’ Leo painted the Mona Lisa and it became part of italian heritage it didn’t destroy the otherwise identical heritage that previously existed just minus that painting. Things are added to heritage and things fade from heritage.
Conservatives put effort into avoiding this because they are scared of change, duh. And they wouldn’t have to put effort into it if heritage couldn’t change like you claim. That they put effort into it should be a huge hint to you how flawed your made up definition and terrible understanding of heritage is.
Also that seems like a weirdly short take on the relationship between conservatives and change.
“That’s not how heritage works: if these two people are casted out of their group they have ended their relationship with their heritages. They will have created a new heritage, related to just their family, but the old ones will remain unchanged in their original groups. So there’s no evolution in the original heritage as you can see”
That is how heritage works. People from different heritages merry. The intermarriage between these groups blends the heritages of future generations. If they are not cast out of their group then their relationship hasn’t ended. You are yet again ignoring all other cases that show your definition is wrong with that if. That is dishonest of you. That you had to use a conditional if to achieve the state of no evolution shows that there are alternate cases where there is evolution. So heritage can change.
“No you are not” Yes, I really am.
“That’s what you are doing by simply discarding my examples of application in real life of my definition. That’s not a substantial criticism but a straw man attack” No I’m pointing out that you are narrowing your examples and trying to ignore that your examples are a subset of all cases and if you consider all cases then your definition falls apart. The weather never changes for example last saturday it was raining.
“It’s called a paradox and it’s my way to show you that your reasoning has no logic ground” yes that is a paradox that I am highlighting for you to show the contradiction in your reasoning. My reasoning doesn’t need conditions and constraints to work. Prove that weather changes but don’t mention any days when its not raining.
“If I disregard aspects of my heritage it doesn’t mean that my heritage has changed, it means that I, personally and alone, have moved away from my heritage to a more logical place. My heritage will remain unchanged and brought forward by those being part of my group, tribe or family who accept it’s tenants” It might be that you are not capable of considering this on large enough scales of time and population. That individual’s severance of their heritage will impact the collective heritage of their family, and to a small degree their society, going forward. If enough people make that change collectively the heritage of that society will change. But its also not an all or nothing case. If the individual, or the masses, only reject one aspect of their heritage and keep the rest otherwise intact then that heritage is passed on slightly changed.
“Nope, beside trying to impose their heritage they were forcing themselves on defenceless children while taking advantage of their positions of power.” It doesn’t matter what they did beside, that doesn’t change that they were saying the same things you are saying. You were doing shitty thing A. They were doing shitty thing A and shitty thing B. You both did shitty thing A.
" May I add that these revolting facts were carried out by participants to another heritage, the catholic one in this specific case?" You may but that doesn’t carry any real meaning. May I add that my cat is orange?
“Repeating the same phrase over and over again won’t turn it’s contents into reality, despite all that Goebbels said about that” Take that to heart then. You’re definition is made up. No one else defines heritage the way you do. No one else uses it the way you do. You keep insisting that your definition is correct in defiance of how it obviously works in reality and against the understanding of heritage for the rest of humanity. You don’t want to be like goebbels do you?
Heritage can change. Your protip was bullshit. Your definition is garbo. You are too proud to back down from the dumb things you said.