Hallmark Apologizes, Backtracks After Saying It Would Pull Ads with Lesbian Kiss

[AtheistCrusader]

61. I didn't invent my own definitions. I observed what the subject nations ARE.

Then I looked for WHY THEY ARE THAT WAY.

There's nothing in atheism that suggests or demands intolerance of LGBT rights. There was, in western religious dogma, in the timeperiod I specified where the West was working to influence Asia/Pacific nations, and China was looking to modernize like the West.

They literally adopted religiously mandated intolerances, that were part and parcel of western religious dogma. Those intolerances were translated into Communist political theology, and maintained by COMMUNISTS.

China/NK/Soviet Union did not behave like atheistic nations.
They were not theistic nations tolerant of LGBT rights that became atheistic AND intolerant of LGBT rights.
They were not atheistic nations that generated new intolerances of LGBT rights.

At the end of the day, they weren't atheistic nations at all. Which is why they are (of the two that survive at all) not ANYTHING like any other atheistic nations in the world today, with regards to human rights, and specifically LGBT rights.


They will catch up though, because the communistic political theocracy is waning.

You have improperly asserted no true Scotsman, and I wouldn't be making any claims WRT debate class/debate stage outcomes here, if I were you. China defines itself two ways; what they say they are, and what they DO. I have simply observed what they do, and they defined themselves OUT of the 'atheistic' venn diagram circle, precisely by what they do. Countries may call themselves whatever they like. There is no shortage of 'democratic republics' that are neither democracies, nor republics, nor anything inbetween. To observe that they aren't, when they say they are, isn't an NTS fallacy.