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.
I'm not claiming they are the same in nature, I'm saying that a group gets the "terrorist" designation based only on it being unaligned with the West, and as a non-state actor.
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.
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.
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.
Judging by the green name, you're new here. You might want to read the community guidelines. Snark doesn't add anything to a conversation and it's boring to read.
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.