To be clear, my intent in stating it is not to plead for sympathy but to try to give context and further understanding.
That's how I got it. Without knowing you, your comments sounded judgy and moralizing to me. But with context I can see that it's not how they were meant.
I’m much more comfortable with fetishizing lacey archaic garments.
I'm not following you, you just keep appearing with your missionary work in the same places I happen to be. So I'm making the best out of it by having some fun. And by the way, jews killed jesus is a popular antisemitic trope.
Wait lets back up und make sure we understand each others point:
The way I see your perspective: you say that individual role in history is rather unimportant, we are all just part of some complex process wich leads to an inevitable progress through forces mostly outside individual control. Is it fair representation or did I miss something?
My perspective is: in the end it's individuals/groups who make specific things that contribute to progress, while sometimes the individuals might be replaceable, they sometimes also leave their individual marks on the events or theories they create (Freund vs. Jung for example - if Jung was more influential we might have quite different psychology). And even if they are replaceable, in the end it's still individuals that have to make things happen.
Our preferences and perceptions are shaped to a degree (large or small) by our experiences. Mine are most definitely colored to a significant degree by my own early childhood trauma, which makes anything approaching age-play, power-play, and CNC, even just by indirect association in my own thought processes, uncomfortable and unsexy to me.
Even if it means nothing from an internet stranger, sorry to hear you had traumatic childhood experiences. Makes sense that you are uncomfortable with said practices.
I also find scat-play pretty disgusting (tbf, that’s probably part of the kink for some)
But without "heroes" who is doing the actual work? Like again: Darwin, Huxley and couple other dudes actually had to make observations, collect data, come up with an, at that time, absurd sounding idea and defend it against societal pressure. And you don't think that they have influenced history and could be replaced by anyone else? I vehemently disagree that the data fits your perspective.
From my perspective you are not different than your average schizophrenic, who has troubles to tell real and imaginary world apart. So as I would not argue with a schizophrenic (I would just enjoy the madness) - I see no point in arguing with you. You need some Dawkins kind of dude who is into this kind of kinky shit. I enjoy talking to people about their believes and spirituality, but I need to have at least some resemblance of agreement on nature of reality to argue with them.
I'm not arguing with you about logic, what would be the point? From my perspective it's like arguing with someone who thinks Lord of the Rings is based on real true story, which would be rather ridiculous endeavor.
How should I know? Also the dude I responded to is a christian fundamentalist - so I would not be so sure.