War crimes are explicitly not terrorism by definition. If you need a basic high school education though there’s hopefully a public school near you. This subject and topic is covered under civics.

Wars are by definition lawful. Sorry you’re wrong

It’s also not a twisted definition. It’s the literal dictionary definition that all countries use when defining terrorism.

And no, if war time acts were not lawful, all war is terrorism which it isn’t so again you’re wrong.

Israel can’t be called terrorism because terrorism must be—by definition—unlawful

the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims.

Emphasis mine.

“Hey so I know we’ve been doing a genocide but look, we’re being really nice when we bomb innocent civilians homes by letting them know we’re going to bomb their homes.”

This (a) doesn’t excuse literal genocide and (b) is just a “nicer” version of exactly the thing they’re appalled Hamas just did. You don’t get to cry foul if you’re going to retaliate with a tit for tat play.

They are terrorists. That’s literally what they are. The fact that attacked an evil fascist state’s city doesn’t change that.

Except for when it’s very important to Russia.

Trade is not barter. And if it involved coinage or it isn’t barter. It’s a form of market economy.

Market Economy ≠ Barter

Where did I mention the 16th or 19th centuries? And mercantilism was 100% not a barter economy. It was a form of market economy controlled by the state… so I’m pretty sure it’s you who misunderstands what mercantilism is.

This “barter” economy as a primary means of exchange never existed. It’s a myth and a lie created by capitalists (actually by one Adam Smith) trying to rationalize the adoption of coinage and currency in ancient civilization.

In fact barter economies tend to arise predominantly in capitalism during periods of economic instability. Ie: after natural disasters, in war torn countries, etc.

The proper term you are looking for is “gift economy” and it is how the world worked before capitalism. I want something from you so you gift it to me with the implicit understanding that if in the future the roles are reversed I give something to you of relatively equal perceived value.

It was actually pretty rare that gifts were paid back in full in one transaction and often larger gifts were paid back through a series of transactions.

If you could edit in an instance-agnostic link (!communityname@host-instance.com) for example: !newcommunities@lemmy.world would be this one.

Makes finding your community on other instances easier (and is technically required for our formatting rules)

See now you’re both wrong and a prick.

If your point is that phenotype at all defines sex, you are objectively wrong. It is a function of sex. If your point is that phenotype is a reliable indicator of sexing in humans, you are also objectively wrong.

Phenotype doesn’t determine sex. It’s a function of it. You literally agreed with me on this.

Tell me you don’t understand biology and genetics without telling me you don’t understand biology and genetics. You’ve succeeded.

Also biology hates binaries. Nature hates binaries. They’re exceedingly rare.

Sexing in humans isn’t phenotypic though. It is chromosomal.

I agree with you that is likely a blatant attempt to copy NSQ but we don’t exist to moderate which communities get to have visibility or not unless they violate the rules of this instance or this community. They do neither and as such they get to advertise here.