Raenryong

Creationism is an important part of understanding one of the world's largest religions, so it should absolutely be taught.

A child should be able to discern ideas that they do or do not agree with, and I see no problem in teaching it provided it's not taught as the sole de facto explanation.

Religious creation myths are valuable information, but not a substitute for scientific explanation.

I commonly see "fetishism" used when the reality of the situation is simply sexual preferences.

The argument I see made in favour of fetishism, specifically in the case of Asian women, is that the men in question want a "submissive anime girl". However, I would strongly argue that most men just like Asian women because they're physically appealing. That's it. Races do physically look different, and certain desirable or undesirable body compositions are more likely to be found on a member of a certain race.

I would argue that if no assumptions are made about a stereotyped personality, "fetishism" is not present.

It would be no more accurate to say someone who likes Asian women as they're often slim and petite is fetishising them, than a woman is fetishing tall men for their height, etc. Just liking height isn't fetishising it; if you associate it with positive qualities, however, then it crosses the line.

I just don't think that line is being crossed when the majority of people making "racial preferences" are doing so strictly on a physical basis.

I would argue that the body informs you based on experiences it is familiar with, as opposed to necessarily objectively correct ones.

Someone who is overweight and used to eating at a surplus will consider that a normal state of being, and attempting to enforce a lower calorie limit will induce feelings of hunger.

Likewise, for a diabetic, for instance, if they have consistently lived with an elevated blood sugar level for a long time, reducing it to normal levels can create symptoms normally associated with abnormally low blood sugar, even if their present level is actually completely healthy (i.e. at the level of a non-diabetic).

The body's responses are coloured by familiarity rather than objective truth, and the human ability to adapt to its environment can be a negative thing in this instance.

In an ideal world, there would be no borders. This is not an ideal world.

In an ideal world, where everyone is united in ideology and discrimination, inequality, and violence do not exist, this would be a desirable state.

However, we are not in that world, and I would argue, we will never be in that world.

Borders are necessary to establish effective governments, able to control the "supply" and "demand" of their citizens and to keep undesirable groups out.

It would be nothing short of lunacy to expose vulnerable groups - such as LGBT people - to people and systems which directly discriminate against their very existence. There are fundamental incompatibilities between different countries/groups of people - such as authoritarianism vs liberalism - that make any kind of perfect mix completely impossible, unless there is a method of unifying two very incompatible ideologies and systems of governance without something horrific like mass subjugation/occupation.

Ultimately, while well-intentioned, I think the complete removal of borders would create far more problems than it would solve.