So because some people are reckless, all people should be unable to fix their shit?
Yeah crackheads are just always getting up to some nonsense to get money for more crack, or at least so I thought
How can they prove guilt? Innocent until proven guilty under English common law, right?
Ig technically, but it was really the US that invaded Afghanistan. Considering their allies that sent significantly smaller forces and did not make the decision to start the military activity as fellow invaders is disingenuous at best.
I would hope that cooler heads prevail, as they have before.
This is the most famous one but I believe there was also one by NORAD in the 60s https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incident
It's kinda wild to claim that the US invaded Russia when they literally only sent one contigent of troops. That's like saying Canada invaded Afghanistan.
"As with many modern scientific creature-names, it was coined in Modern Latin from Greek elements, so it might be allowed to partake of Latin grammar in forming the plural"
Literally from the link you provided. It was coined initially in the language of modern latin, from Greek roots, certainly, but the word objectively and literally comes from modern latin.
Exactly. I think that's what the sentiment of the person you're replying to was as well.
In the US they usually just hit you with trumped up charges for daring to do something. When the keystone xl pipeline was being built some protesters crawled inside so they couldn't continue working... those protesters were charged with attempted murder iirc (because it was dangerous for them to crawl inside the pipeline or some bs).
All English words that don't have a specific pluralization (eg mouse, mice) can be pluralized with either an s or an es. It's also a Latin and Greek root, so it can be pluralized as you did, in the Latin way, or the Greek way (Thesauroi), or alternatively with the s/es ending, all of which are correct!
If you need an example of this read republic book 1.
Socrates essentially just dunks on these guys that are trying to define justice.
One of them says that justice is doing good to your friends and evil to your enemies
The way that socrates reubuts this argument is that the fella in question doesn't define friends, enemies, good, or evil, so how can he expect to come up with an idea of what justice is before first defining these other concepts that are meaningful to us because of their common usage, but can be twisted greatly in logical argumentation.
I think it's hilarious how you accuse me of arguing in bad faith then purposely misrepresent my argument to make yours look better not even 10 sentences later. I have benn writing a reply to this comment and I really hope you read it when I finish.
Wasn't a trump card. Was intended to show you just how ridiculous your line of argumentation was. If I said I'm right because I've been sexually assaulted, that would be different.
Are we really equivocating catcalling, in which a woman has immediate and relevant fears for her physical safety, and some gross comments online?
Like when somebody tells me they're gonna rape me in a video game lobby, I don't appreciate their language but I'm not legitimately fearful.
I'd also really think somebody that cares about people wouldn't throw somebody's trauma in their face, fwiw
Something I did like about the other place was the communities for localities, and while I doubt we've hit that type of critical mass yet I figured I'd shoot since I'm in a pretty big city: anybody else live in Brooklyn or elsewhere in the greater NYC area? I'll understand if this gets removed, just couldn't think of a better place to try it.