skye

probably witnessing mammoths or other animals return to their nest.

However I don't think the happiness would last long

Why are you so pressed? What part of what I said is somehow in support of Russia?

Do you then not think that U.S. using Agent Orange wouldnt count as a war crime? or any flamethrower use in WW1? or White Phosphorus?

What would using a banned weapon during war be called if not a war crime?

Clearly these weapons are banned because they are overly cruel, meaning it gets the job too well done.

Last time I checked if someone used banned substances that counts as a crime. And if someone were to break the same rules for war, it would qualify as a crime during wartime (war crime for short).

But no you just think that every hint of criticism against anyone good means that you're against that fully? Have you heard of the word 'nuance' before?

It's also a war crime if it's a weapon inflicting excessively injurious or having indiscriminate effects. Like flamethrowers, landmines and blinding lased weapons.

All of these weapons are banned under Geneva Convention, and by using them in a war you would be committing a war crime

And useful to let you know if a post is actually genuine/useful, or something you should probably ignore and disregard because everyone else that read it before you discarded it as bad

no it must only be for content farming

okay but you make posts with the expectation they are public. Votes only change a number, and are a way for you to show support/disagreement for something without broadcasting it to everyone.

If you want to broadcast it and make it public you can reply to a comment

(at least on Sync) if you go in settings > filters, you can hide posts by certain keywords

Not the shit

I would hope it's not

at least these reviews are more informative about a game than the "just leaving this cat here" for thr billionth time

I think there's plenty of people (myself included) that had to deal with itching like this before even discovering what masturbation is

One simple google of the definition shows it includes all humans. The archaic ('old meaning', if you don't know) meaning did refer to only men, but that's nor the case anymore.

It's not the case anymore because through time and usage lsnguage evolved ( Like you said! ) and it evolved to encompass all humans! Crazy how language does that.

However, for you to selfishly tout about all of this in a post Xompletely unrelated to any of this, and for you to call me an idiot and/or mysoginist because i simply didn't agree with you on this, shoecases just how bad faith you were in the first place.

Oh and what's this? No one giving this much a fuck about this? https://old.reddit.com/r/AskWomen/comments/1wdzcq/how_do_you_feel_about_the_word_mankind_or_the_use/

Clearly you want to be feminist and do something and that's great! Please tackle some actual problems instead of getting fired up over a word that has nothing to do with anything, hasn't bothered anyone, and shouldn't have been an issue to discuss about in a post on disrespecting Holocaust victims.

Have a good day, and I hope you learn from your mistakes and develop some "Think twice before posting"

I think itçs very important to bring up how we currently think and perceive words, after you said language shapes how we think.

The word "mankind" isn't male-centric because no one perceives it that way. It cannot possibly be "male-centric" when it was never meant that way and when no one perceives it that way.

However, I'd like to argue that by making this new "Humankind" distinction, you're adding the male-centric view to the term "Mankind", when there wasn't one associated to it in the first place.

I cannot be more clear than this, and I think you are the one arguing in bad faith here perhaps

I think you are missing the point here. Whenever anyone reads "Mankind", they think of everyone. Not just the men. It's not making anyone an after-thought.