Yeah I was very ready to disagree with it being most people as that is far from my experience. I also come from one of those northern european countries that others describe as cold and closed of because we have a much more introvert aligned culture. And the fact that I’m someone who gets drained probably also biases my sample to more like minded people.

Unfortunately I am still unable to find any stories that tells what happens to the Hamas members after their surrender. I’m unsure if they get treated well or are sent to the same facilities in which there are reports of human rights violations amounting to psykological and physical torture.

I did find some examples of successful surenders, but nothing where hostages were explicitly mentioned to have sweetened the deal of surrender.
I do believe you may be right but I have been unable to verify it myself.

Are there any examples of it being used successfully and the aftermath of it? This is a genuine question stemming from my own ignorance on the subject. I would really like for that to be a good way of handeling situations where hostages are released, but I could easily understand why a member of Hamas might have reservations if they do not have reason to trust the system.
If there is good reason to trust it I will agree that that would have been a viable and good way out and should have been used.

To me it sounded like they were specifically pushing against a claim that Hamas offered to free everyone. They pointed out that they only said civilians and as not all hostages would be considered civilians not all hostages would have been freed as another commenter claimed.

I still see it as them pushing back against an “Hamas was good actually” sentiment, arguing that Hamas was not as good as implied due to a careful reading of the statement and an assessment of the hostages and whether all were civilian or would be considered civilian by Hamas.

There is a greater context, but the thread in which this was written the context was a push back against claims portraying Hamas favorably.

Do you really believe that any member of hamas would be safe just because they let some hostages go? How would that work? Should they surrender themselves to the IDF while delivering the hostages, just notify them of where they are so they won’t be bombed or how would that all work?

How were they doing that? To me it seemed like their point was a distinction between all hostages and civilian ones being released. I don’t know if they are correct, but I cannot see how it in any way dehumanizes anyone.

It’s free, so don’t let that stop you, but it is very fair if you want a more complete experience before trying it out.

(It is paid on steam as a way to suport the game, but free downloads can be found on their website)

I would say yes and no. It is a game about evolution with some similarities but it is very focused on a realistic representation of evolution. This makes it a more complex game than spore and actively encourages many different niches not just agressive, peaceful and mixed as spore did.

Aldo currently they are working on finishong the cell stage and the beginning of the multicellular stage while have more in deapth discussion about the transition between the microscopic and macroscopic phases among other things.

Aah okay, that makes sense. Paulogia does however put forward at least one more person having an experience, possibly due to a grief hallucination. If I remember correctly he suggested Peter being the one to have it.
I also don’t remember him ever suggesting that the empty tomb is an actual fact in need of explanation. I think he sees it as likely that Jesus would have been unceremoniously put in a mass- or ditch grave as was common for crucifixion victims. The tomb would then be a detail added on later by other christians, likely through narrative evolution.
I may misremember some of it though, so maybe I should go back and rewatch as well.

Oh nice! :D

I think it is more likely that they refer to the minimum witnesses argument put firth by a youtuber Paulogia. He has done a lot to popularize it as a response to the criticism that sceptics have no singular explanation for the proposed evidence of Jesus provided by the spread of christianity and the accounts of early cristians.

As a Dane I’d guess they didn’t realize Americans use it as a greating and so assumed you to be initiating a conversation unrelated to ordering, possibly with bad intentions.

It would be a little like starting the conversation with a “how is your mother”, it would signal way more familiarity than was had, come way out of left field and be generally unwanted when you are working if you don’t have time to stop for the conversation that would ensue.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think you did anything wrong necessarily, it’s just a cultural difference that likely causes misunderstandings if none of the parties are aware of it. I’d liken it to a Eurpean going to a restaurant in the US, not tipping anything and how both parties may feel the other party to be rude after the fact if the server let their dissatisfaction show.

I could of course be wrong and they may just have been an ass, plenty of those in tourist heavy areas for sure. Just something to consider if it could have been the case.

I do not ageee with the poster you respond to, but false confessions are a serious problem. Often (in the US) they arise from hours long interrogations without a lawyer, in which police are allowed to lie about the evidence they have. This leads to situations where a suspect feels like they are done for even if they didn’t commit a crime. When a plea deal is then put in front of them which they are told would be much preferable to getting sentenced without it, they sign and admit to a crime they never committed. It shouldn’t happen but is a thing that unfortunately does occur.

That said, I doubt it being the case here.

Should every country just surrender to aggressors, only those that require aid to defend themselves or some other criteria? This seems like a call for any small state to just give up when a conqueror is at their door ready to oppress them, is that what you believe?

Mine would be Thrive, not so much due to its current gameplay, though it is okay, but moreso due to an unwavering commitment to a vision. It has gone on for years and is essentially a scientifically close to accurate version of spore. They have almost finished the single cell stage and are working some on the transition to multicellular now as I understand it. I find it to be an impressive project as it started from the disappointment with spore and has evolved into something that I would genuinely suggest as a learning tool in middle school biology class.

So if neither would stand up to Israel, what makes Trump preferable to Biden?

Did he advocate for Trump over Biden?

That isn’t the tone I got from it, but I hope you’re right. I’d much rather it being me misunderstanding that he meant oppression tarnished the beuty, than the attempt at pointing out nonexistent hypocrisy I took it to mean.

Why couldn’t it? Could they not be confined to an area with historic buildings? It seems quite preposterous to me that nothing beautiful could exist in any area solely due to oppression of the people there.

Aah sorry, I responded a bit too quickly there :) I’d excuse it by nearing my stop with the train, but I should have read it through.

Yeah, I think the greatness of an assassin is quite subjective in the end and might be more of a vibe with arguments for it than any concrete metric.

I don’t think that supports the claim at all. It might as well be due to women being seen as insignificant and incapable, not necessarily trustworthy or worth listening to. I don’t doubt that societal views of women could make them better assassins or spies, but that it should be due to mans inherent want to listen and believe them seems dubious to me.