Oh so you have seen it and fully understand it then. Got it. Thanks for your contribution.

Alfalfa Meal and Coffee Grounds - can only be used in moderation due to their high nitrogen content which would fuck up waterways way more than salt.

Beet Juice - not nearly as effective as salt

Grape Skin - still in testing, no where near close to market, unknown ecological impacts

Brine - has the same problem as salt because that’s essentially what it is

Manual removal - are you fucking kidding me?

Salt is the best we have, and the alternatives aren’t just less economical, they’re also just plain unfeasible.

I can kinda get it not being “murderous”. When civilians are killed while in the middle of a war, it’s not considered murder, it’s considered a war crime. It’s a technicality, but that’s how words work.

But I’m not sure how you can say it isn’t brutal. Of course it’s brutal.

So because something bad happened and we’re all emotional, we’re supposed to ignore critical thinking and just go along with whatever people say that makes them feel better about the situation, regardless of if it’s correct or not? There’s a sort of merit in that I suppose, but it’s not for me.

I mean, yes? Exactly? Words matter. The right words matter. Just because a group is doing something negative does not mean every negative word applies to them. That’s small brain thinking.

When you use the right words to describe a horrible action, it’s accusation and condemnation. When you use the wrong words, it just becomes name calling.

If we’re being technical, then it’s the one you crossed out that says

Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law.

Because CBC is using murder as a legal definition, not common parlance, and it doesn’t fit the legal definition of murder. But I get it, you don’t want technicalities.

90s

teenagers

Yea, thats Gen X. Majority of millennials weren’t teens in the 90’s

That’s a pretty unfeasible request. Sure, maybe big resalers might keep something like that, but the average consumer? I keep my receipts for maybe a year on big purchases unless there’s something like a warranty I need it for. And I get the feeling that’s already more than most folks would do.

If you are insisting on a first purchase receipt before buying something used, you are essentially saying you’ll almost never buy something used. The odds someone would even still have it, let alone go through the hassle of providing it to you, are extremely low. Why would they do that when they could just sell to a less difficult customer who doesn’t care?

deleted by creator

I heard it helps recognize dead or diseased bodies

Sure that’s 1. And what about all the other companies out there? Other companies doing the same thing as Lush is what the subject was in the comment you childishly replied to. Of course, you seem like a person who likes living in the bottom quartile of things, so I wouldn’t expect reading comprehension to be a big strength of yours.

If it’s a popular enough show, there will be a single person out there who will still be willing to buy the seat. Or a group who is fine with being split up and will just take whatever seats are left.

If it’s not a popular show, then what exactly is the fucking problem?

Seems like a lot of words for a 3 year old.

Damn, last time I played the wall of flesh was the final boss

On the flip side, every RPG should have a “Busy Adult” setting that recaps where you are, what you were doing, and possibly even a brief reexplainstion of the controls because you haven’t gotten the chance to play in 7 months.

Kung Pow?

See that’s the difference though. A genocide isn’t a complete disregard for civilian life. Genocide pretty specifically regards civilian life because the civilians themselves are the targets. Callous indifference isn’t the same a genocide. You can say I’m being pedantic, but words matter. Calling it genocide when it doesn’t fit the definition not only cheapens the word, it also cheapens your message.

When there is a deliberate targeting of Palestinian civilians. Not just attacks done with little care for civilian casualties, but attacks where the civilian casualties are the entire point. We aren’t there yet, despite what armchair philosophers will say on this site. Israel is being reckless, callous, and is certainly commiting war crimes, but unless the Palestinians are being intentionally targeted for the sheer goal of killing as many Palestinians as possible, it doesnt fall into the definition of a genocide.

It’s more a pretty solid prediction that you’re not going to actually boycott them because you are ignorant to the interconnectivity of modern mega corporations. Unless you are fully prepared to live off the grid, the idea of a boycott isn’t just unfeasible, it fully reveals your own immaturity for thinking that it could be.

Child