Not to mention the fact that you can force single-factor authentication using Skype for business despite requiring MFA across the board. Just had to patch that hole recently.

So your comments aren’t actually sarcastic? Got it.

Oh yeah, well his comment was also sarcastic, dumbass. Maybe get out a dictionary flip the pages until your well past the S section, then start back tracking until somehow you’re all the way back to the Fs, then find your way finally to the S section again and lookup the basic bitch word that is spelled ‘sarcasm’.

This comment and all others in this thread are also sarcasm btw. /ns

And then calculates tax right at the register. They have everything they need to do it, it’d hurt their bottom line and be consumer friendly so they don’t.

Male is literally the same kind of word just for the opposite sex/gender; the term specifically points out the ability to produce sperm (in many dimorphic species) for the purposes of reproducing with the opposite sex. It’s literally just saying “your distinguishing characteristic is your ability to inseminate another of your species” and is just as dehumanizing.

The reason you would use it in that context is because it’s “[gender specific noun] of all ages.” Where if you were to say “boys of all ages” or “men of all ages” it would imply either all ages under 18 or all ages at or over 18.

This is the same context in which you would use female as a noun, as girl/woman implies a restricted age range, just as boy/man, when you specifically don’t want one.

You’re trying so hard.

Tomatoes have plenty of sugar in them… most fruits do.

Also, the assumption that SA victim = female. The article only ever says minor and any gender can be a victim.

Not everything has an answer and not everything needs to be answered. Given that you think subjective opinion is either objectively right or wrong, it’s incredibly obvious that the idea that someone would give opinion for consideration rather than argument is lost on you.

Your idea that mental disorders, and one’s opinion of it, constitutes a personality might have something to do with it.

Luckily nothing was asked, no answer was sought.

So the bar for you is generally knowing a non-zero amount of things about mental disorders but for others in this thread it’s having to know the person from the article?

Setting yourself up for an easy win by default there, smart. What’s not smart is apparently assuming you’re the only one in this thread that is even faintly familiar with mental disorders and therefore others must bow to your subjective opinion.

You don’t have to know any particular person to know that having a mental disorder doesn’t magically un-asshole them or shield them from all criticism; origin from disorder is an explanation, not an excuse. I know I’d never expect, or frankly want, anyone to suffer my presence if one of my many oddities caused them some kind of significant distress.

She’s probably just a braggadocious blaggard.

That is a false dichotomy. If you accept the idea of the existence of cases with certainty there is the possibility of the restriction of the use of the death penalty to those cases.

I don’t believe pointing out a case where certainty is ensured missed the point; rather, it argues the point. He’s giving an example where execution would be okay due to their being absolute certainty, not arguing that it should be the same outcome where there isn’t absolute certainty.