But they are not doing it because they are Christians. The vast majority of Christians don’t do it, and atheist americans do it too. This is just a quirk of america, that is religiously coloured because that is what america is like.

And the comment I responded to was talking about people who circumcise for religious reasons.

So it is you, who is wrong.

Wow. If I was prompted to come up with the stupidest notion right now, I would hardly make up something dumber.

The Jews at least had a normal reason to do this(hygiene), this is ridiculous. Do you still do this?

But Americans that circumcise(which I did not know happened), don’t do it for religious reasons. And Muslims don’t believe in the story depicted, so this by elimination only applies to Jews.

Believe what?

It is not. There are enough Jews that don’t support the actions of Israel for your comment to be definetly antisemitic.

But the only religion that holds to this story of Abraham, and circumsises is Judaism.

Muslims reject the Torah, or the Old Testament, and Christians are under no obligation to circumcise so this only applies to Jews.

And Americans do it because they are weird for cultural reasons.

I would say that Christians are not required to circumcise themselves, since jewish law only applied to Jews before Christ, and it actually made sense to do so back then, for hygienic reasons.

I was unaware Americans do this, but first I would say that that practice is clearly not connected to Abraham, that is portrayed here, in any way, even if what you say is correct. And it is a cultural practice, not a relgious one, and even if it was, as you say, motivated by religious views.

But I… am not sure how circumcision would prevent anyone from touching himself, so I am highly sceptical of that claim.

Finally, I will say that it would be unfair to transpose the beliefs of an obscure american sect of Christianity on the entire Christendom. Especially since there is literally no religious requirement for Christians to do so.

That seems somewhat antisemitic, if you ask me. Not all jews are anti-trans.

Well, I sincerely doubt people in any western country were particularly fond of black people at the time. However, the country you are from is hardly important.

The point is, that the views that prompt you to call these people nazis were also held by people that dealt with the nazis.

80 years ago, most people in your country did not have a much more favourable view of black people.

The word “fascist” does not mean “person I do not like”.

This doesn’t make any sense. My person has nothing to do with this.

Leftists that support rehabilitative justice, oppose the police and prisons, turn into Hitler when someone commits a minor offence against a group they favour. How does that work?

Well, Camus and Sartre are not exactly about finding meaning, but dealing with the world with no inherent meaning.

No advice here, but I suppose it would be rather difficult to argue for objective meaning of life under atheism, which seems prevalent here on lemmy, so I would consider the feasibility of the existentialist project, in creating meaning or living with the condradiction between our desire of meaning and the meaningless world.

Exactly. In fact, my nation was genocided so hard by the Russians, we don’t even know it happened.

The point is, that there is not necessarily a desire to leave. You are generalising unnecessarily.

Precisely.

And this is why a lot of peoples did not, in fact, fight a war of independence against Russia.

And the Chechens, for instance, wanted independence because they were subjected to a genocide by the USSR when it was ruled by a Georgian, so this is hardly a usual case for the ethnic minorities, since most of them were not genocided.

This is simply not correct. Quite a lot of people would prefer not to separate from Russia.

There are no wars now.

The wars happened when the central government was too weak to deal with them, which supports my point somewhat.

Well, I believe that without Russia, Russian Caucasus will be a worse place overall, and will also have a few wars.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia are also worse off than they would be had they remained in Georgia.

It seems to me that this sort of nationalism is counterproductive.

But is this not irrelevant? It seems to me that you believe that North Ossetia should be independent, despite the fact that Ossetians do not want independence from Russia, and South Ossetia should not be independent, despite the fact that South Ossetians would rather not be a part of Georgia.

You mentioned the invasion of Georgia, and it seems from the context like you believe it to be an injust invasion. Is this correct? Do you believe Georgia is entitled to the land it lost?