To conflate the main activities of an occupying army with that of a tactical cell or rebel/insurgent and claiming they're the same in nature, really makes me wonder why we would have intelligence agencies or counterterrorist rapid response units. The army would suffice.
This is not a "we're the good guys, and they're the bad guys" propaganda thing. It just defines a very different mode of combat. Nice try, but a terrorist is a subversion of a secret agent, not a soldier.
Since you keep asking the same, here's some reading for you as well. It's not worth my energy to reply if your just going to ignore that and repeat your question. Best of luck.
Why is it considered by others to be a bad thing, to see women as lesser and to keep them down, just because they're women?
Let me give you an easy out here, and tell you my assumptions. I am assuming it also only took you a minute to look up the definition. And after reading it, then couldn't come up for a reason for others to judge that kind of behavior.
I am kind of stumped of how to actually reply to this, to me it is just pretty obvious that any kind of prejudice or bias like that is strongly unwanted.
What's your point? The reason that guns are dangerous isn't schizophrenia either, but we know that they're more dangerous than marijuana as well. Likewise it is quite evident that sugar has been causing way more harm than marijuana, albeit in a different way.
If someone close to you had to deal with schizophrenia then I am sorry. It does not however make sugar any less of a danger.
It isn't lack of understanding that is being expressed, it is a lack of acceptance. I think that is a good thing.
And even if you would percieve ignorance instead, it doesn't mean that they need snark targeted at them. Please respect the community guidelines of this comment section.
"The famous Marshmallow Test. Do the kids have high trust or low trust in the authority figure to give them 2 marshmallows?"
Not a good example as those were about the child having the discipline to wait the needed time for the second marshmallow. Trust wasn't measured. You can argue that the kid needs trust to get to the discipline part, but then you're not talking about that experiment anymore, and the burden of proof increases significantly.
Also it has been debunked as an indicator of discipline and later succes in life, and has now become a famous example of the reproduction problem psychology is reckoning with. I would just generally stay away from it to proof a point. It will only weaken your position if someone familiar with it.
Sorry for being off topic here, but it's popular use is starting to irk me
I agree with the point you're trying to make, but not your sentiment.
To quote the guidelines: "Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community"
Internet is bigger than the mainstream. It's not just YouTube and Facebook. If you really wish to have a side stream, maybe go on 4Chan or visit the dark web.
Because let's not pretend that the internet was easy to navigate back in the day. You wanted the alternative nichy stuff, you needed to work for that. That never changed, neither online nor offline.
Neither does it his. It is a problem for some areas to the point it will completely erode the empathy of people who have to live with it. Their stake is not an internet argument, but a daily reality to deal with.
You can then argue that it's caused by mental illness and we should be empathetic, but I've talked to multiple people who actually worked in psych wards, my mother being one of them. They know they need to take care of them and be empathetic, but boy don't they all have stories to tell that has caused them to dehumanize them to some extent, or suffer burnout as the alternative.
Don't just empathize with the mentally ill, but also the others you so easily burden with doing the actual work.
Just because a plant based lifestyle is burdensome, doesn't mean people think it should be. And by that reasoning neither should any other diet. So I don't get why the projection of your experience onto the experience of others is so necessary
> Firstly, why does every story need to include a mix of genders speaking?
Did every Saturday morning cartoon have to end with explaining the moral of the story, and followed by a joke with the whole cast laughing? They didn't, but they sure used to.
Did the old knightly tales always have to show christian values and knightly valour, through a whole lot of christian symbolism? They didn't, but they sure used to.
Likewise I've started to read all the classic sci fi, and it is very noticeable, that women just want to have sex with the main character for no real reason. Because ya know, it would be nice to admit that women have sexual desires as well, and that it's especially convenient if that would mean them pleasing the protagonist that just shows up.
Read one, and you don't have to complain about it, read several and you start to see it pervasive and an outlook of the times. So I look forward to the hundredth story about going out with your mates, so I can call it out in the same manner
You're missing the point. As these things are regulated, the holes get plugged by the authority regulating them. This is not so much the case in the crypto space. They see regulation as an ineffeciency, that needs to be disrupted
Meanwhile they're discovering that these regulations were actually safeguards, and they're not solving any problem. They're just reinventing the wheels of the finance sector.
This is not a "we're the good guys, and they're the bad guys" propaganda thing. It just defines a very different mode of combat. Nice try, but a terrorist is a subversion of a secret agent, not a soldier.