Well, context definitely matters. We don’t know what you did, how you did it, if she was with her bf, how sane was her bf etc etc. I don’t want to negate your personal experience but I doubt it was just normally casually “talking to a girl” that got you in trouble in a normal situation.

Also 2015 is almost 10 years ago, it’s not really accurate to define it as the current situation.

As for my source, I’m white, my wife is Korean, my ex was Korean, and I hang out alone with female Korean friends a lot. Some very old grandpa may be not very happy about skinship in public, but that’s all. Never to the extent of being attacked or harassed, it’s usually just looking at us a bit with a grumpy face.

This being said, it’s not all perfect. Some families may be less open than others in accepting a marriage with a foreigner (old generations, young people just think it’s cool usually). And not only about white people. The mom of a friend was grumpy about her son marrying a Japanese girl, for example (even if he lives in Japan) But even so, nowdays is rarely open hostility.

Of course idiots are everywhere. So I’m pretty sure there are young guys saying “white guys steal our women!1!!” and getting angry.

Also, an important note is that these days the fight between “feminist” Korean women and men against them is getting bigger. This can influence especially the mind of young men. I was approached by a Korean boy asking me about how women are in my country because all Korean women sucks and are terrible. In that context, I’m sure some guy will use dating a foreigner as an excuse to say how shit and easy Korean girls are.

Anyway, exceptions aside the average population is pretty much fine with it, especially in big cities. It’s not like Korean men don’t like white women too, after all.

Sorry if this is too long, but we’re all here to share knowledge about those countries anyway

Don’t know about the rest, but the South Korea part is simply complete bs

Except that it’s not 2000 years ago anymore. Literally everyone knows about Christianity, hell and Jesus already. You’re not coming with some obscure new secret.

If they don’t believe it’s because they don’t want to, so please do leave them alone.

If they look interested instead, then yes of course help them out.

But going to them first and starting telling them how their soul will burn in hell for eternity is definitely not a nice thing to do to anyone. Nobody asked your opinion there.

If me and my group of 200 people believe that there is an evil invisible monster that will curse the soul of everyone unless they come to our church and listen to our priest once a week, would you like all 200 of them to come to you and tell you the same story all over again and again until you give up and go? No, I don’t think you’d like that.

It’s just a matter of respecting each other faith (or lack of) and personal freedom.

That specific word in Italian has multiple meanings, one of which being something like “excessive/useless detail or addition, especially when done for the cool factor only” and another being “gayness”.

Without the full context of the sentence, it’s very hard to say what he meant or what he was saying.

Of course the word is still originating from the slur and shouldn’t be used by the pope, but it’s technically possible that wasn’t even used in relation to any minority (just as much as the opposite)

Unless I missed some extra info or source that has the full context, it’s hard to say

Stated as a fact with no emotion or judgment related to it. So that excludes mourning for it, which was the point I was making in my reply which was more than clear enough.

And I’m sorry, but I find it incredibly ironic how you’re the one saying reading comprehension isn’t that hard after failing to understand both Nietzsche and my comment.

You suggested them to read Nietzsche and from it you got he mourns the decline of religion through all of his works? Maybe you should also get a re-read.

The decline of religion is stated as a fact, killed by men’s rationality and evolution. As any evolution it has opportunities and risks, in this case the bigger risk is the loss of morality.

But the only thing he clearly advocates for is overcoming religion and God because they are not needed anymore. The new Man should make its own meaning and rules.

It’s the whole concept of the übermensch which is the single central point of his all system.

The quote is not supposed to be his opinion (not directly at least), it’s a character in a story.

It’s like taking the stance of Cephalus in the Plato’s Republic and say it’s Plato’s opinion, while it’s clearly just a tool to let Socrates speak.