Furries aren’t as recent as people tend to think either I might point out, the subculture has existed in some form since like the 80s to my understanding, it’s just more popular and visible these days.
Furries aren’t as recent as people tend to think either I might point out, the subculture has existed in some form since like the 80s to my understanding, it’s just more popular and visible these days.
I saw a post earlier on my mastodon mentioning this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Mines,_Booby-Traps_and_Other_Devices I do see “portable objects” mentioned, but given that the section is otherwise about stuff associated with children, I’m not sure if pagers would qualify or not.
Especially since if he was standing up, it wouldn’t be possible for an attacker to get an arrow in him in that direction anyway
It does make me wonder though, if there is a need for just the warhead portion of these weapons and not always for the whole missile and launcher, if it might not make sense to get the manufacturer to just make some of the warhead bit by itself and send a delivery with a few of the systems replaced with the extra loose warheads, to use aid resources (and the time of whoever is taking the missile apart again) more efficiently.
I assume that the whole “Stalin starved his people” thing isn’t talking about the average conditions of the Soviet Union during more “normal” times, but rather specific events of mass starvation like the Holodomor. That being said, famine caused by accidental or malicious management of agriculture is something hardly unique to any single economic system (I imagine a comparison could be made to the Irish potato famine there, for an example of a similar type of disaster under a different economic system), so I’m not sure if it reflects entirely on the kind of system the Soviets were going for as much as it does mistakes in the process of transitioning to that system, and malfeasance on the part of those in charge in pushing the consequences of those mistakes upon disfavored groups.
I don’t think these myths are meant to be taken completely literally, but in any case, Zeus isn’t exactly the most upstanding and consistent deity out of all mythologies.
Would fit right in with those NCD people that are always lusting over planes, I guess.
It’s very similar to the concept of blood libel I think, just directed at a different group than that term usually refers to. Which, given what that kind of thing historically has led to, is extremely concerning coming from such a public figure.
Stick it to a garlic farmer by buying their garlic? Even if selling it again means that they dont get the sales at that event, thats still garlic sold at previous events above the amount that they might otherwise have sold. Maybe growing more changes things, but unless one is a farmer oneself, I doubt one can so easily grow more garlic that a professional garlic farmer, because of the land and tools needed.
Meanwhile, if successful, they’d probably complain about traffic and blame it on cyclists being slow in the car lanes
I’ve seen a number of people suggest it might have been originally implied to be a fig or date, given the age and habitat of those fruits, not that it really matters what species
Realistically she’s got quite a few of those, but when given a bad but not fundamentally different from what one had before option, and a make everything far worse option, and a situation that makes trying to choose a third option an exercise in futility, the choice is a no-brainer.
Funnily enough, in an actual coincidence, Hitler himself also had a nephew (well half-nephew, but still) who hated and wrote about him (to the point of joining the US military while it was at war with his uncle, even).
Because the candidates do have those responsibilities, but have shirked them. Ideally, we’d want a better voting system, that didn’t mathematically garuntee that only two viable parties emerge, so that when the politicians refuse to use their power as they should, people who will may be chosen instead, but we don’t have that, and changing that is a long and difficult process that only gets harder if the more authoritarian types get power anyway. If you’re in a lifeboat with holes, and there are two people that have rigged things so that one of them is going to be in charge, and one wants to stop bailing out water and the other wants to scoop it back into the boat, then even though those two aren’t following their responsibilities, it doesn’t mean you should stop bailing the water out, because it has to get done by somebody or you drown. And if you have a say in which of the two is in charge, the guy that just wants to sit there uselessly is still the option you must pick, because at least they aren’t trying to undo the progress you’re making. Ideally you’d want to figure out how to undo the rigged system too, but you have to deal with the water first, lest you all drown fighting over who’s in charge.
And that’d be reasonable for you to do. However, having a network choose to remove something, or cut ties with servers in the network that don’t in an attempt to persuade them to remove that thing, isn’t exactly the same as a government ordering a thing be removed. The former doesn’t give much avenue for a malicious actor to suppress something that isn’t in their interest, because they can hardly control the collective actions of users on the network, but the latter does by creating a single point of decision making on the network’s content from the outside. Not that the motivations in wanting that video gone were bad, but there is an element of risk to making it possible for a government entity to remove something from a social network, even if the thing they want gone this time is something that really shouldn’t be there.
The arrows are intimidating, but their true power was their magical ability to transform things. For example, in this case they have transformed a high-wing airplane into a low-wing one.
Can’t forget the three day challenge
In a sense pragmatism would mean that a soldier eats whatever they can, given that generally, people will do things they find objectionable rather than starve, if one was talking about the individual soldiers being pragmatic. However, what I was referring to was the state or military leadership being pragmatic here, because even if your soldiers will eat rations they object to, they’re probably not going to like it, and one can’t so easily pragmatically decide to like something. So even if your soldiers dutifully eat whatever they’re given regardless of if they’d object to doing so given a reasonable choice, it’s still going to hurt morale and therefore hurt their ability to carry out their objectives. Not really arguing with you here obviously, just responding to that hypothetical response you were suggesting someone might give.
I mean, in the middle of a war, especially a defensive war, pragmatism is going to override a lot, and providing soldiers with meals that align with their preferred diets wherever possible is going to avoid a big hit to morale over making one eat things that they have some ethical or religious objection to, so it makes sense to do
Oh I mean, yeah, anthro characters are probably older than civilization, but I meant the furry fandom as a specific subculture rather than specifically the subject it is centered around.