Nothing you said responds to what I said originally. I cannot do anything aside from restate what I said before.

First off, sending someone to Hell does not "stop him from doing harm", it only retroactively punishes them for harm they have already caused. Hell does absolutely nothing whatsoever to decrease the amount of suffering in the world.

Second, most interpretations of Hell are of infinite suffering. Hell is an infinite response to a finite amount of harm - certainly not a benevolent action. All the suffering every person in the world has ever experienced is not even equivalent to sending even 1 person to hell. That seems ridiculously out of line.

Third, if God intended to use Hell as a deterrent, she did a really terrible job of it - leaving absolutely zero evidence of her presence and no universal rulebook. How exactly is one supposed to be deterred by the notion of Hell if one can't be sure that one's actions will lead to it, or even that it exists in the first place? If Hell is really supposed to be a deterrent, it would have worked much better if God made it very, very obvious - as a benevolent God should do, rather than toying around with the possibility of infinite suffering.

That's a poor definition of "immoral". Saying that something is bad because some people don't like it is bordering on circular logic. In any case, the social instability caused by incest (combined with irrational thinking on the part of the observers) is negligible.

It's only immoral if it leads to reproduction. In ye olde days, sex very often led to reproduction, but condoms/contraception are significantly better today.

There is no problem with incest that doesn't lead to reproduction. Of course, that's in an ideal world, and contraception/condoms don't always work, so it's a tricky scenario.

In and of itself, sex with a relative is not immoral.

I feel this question creates a false dichotomy (that "fake" does not imply horrendously ugly).

I consider anyone that gets plastic surgery, a boob job and a fake tan to have irreconcilable character defects - selfishness, low self-esteem, being superficial, etc.

In addition, the number of people I would classify as "ugly" are exceedingly low.

First off, yes, discrimination and stereotyping against males is just as oppressive.

But my mention of "strong vs dainty" was not meant as a physical characteristic, but a personality stereotype. Besides, simply because some people of one gender or another act in a certain way does not mean we should marginalize them into that specific role.

And the point still stands that women, more than men, are used as "display"

> The question is, has feminism succeeded in liberating females from social oppression?

To a point, yes. But not completely. The idea that women should be there for show is still very, very evident. You see it in ads, TV shows, etc, and it's most certainly a form of social oppression.

And of course there are still very strong gender roles. Men are strong, women are dainty, men do the thinking, women do the childbearing, etc. While we've eliminated most of the legal oppression, the social oppression is still there.

Noam Chomsky. Not because he would be the best at running the country, but for the ideological influence that comes with the job.

The wealthy will always have vastly greater power than the poor. Even if our entire monetary system collapses this will remain the case.

First off, in a society without money or private property, there would not be a "wealthy" or "poor", or even "power". Secondly, within the bounds of modern societies (liberal democracy w/private property, etc), I agree that the wealthy will always have greater power than the poor. However, this doesn't mean that they can't have more power or less power depending on the policies implemented. Voting with tax dollars would give them significantly more power.

I doubt that doing something along the lines of allowing taxpayers to have a more meaningful voice in how their tax dollars are spent would exacerbate the situation any. Why do you think it would?

Because a majority of taxpayers are wealthy. 40% (I believe) of the country doesn't even pay federal income tax, so already you're removing the "tax vote" from nearly half our population. The top 10% control 71% of the wealth, and the top 1% would control 38% of how our money is spent. 38% of our budget in the hand of a tiny, tiny minority is extraordinarily dangerous.