Oh right, thanks m800.

Nor did i claim what they did was good, but it is undeniable that allowing women into the army, when they were previously barred, is something done for "equality".(but lowering the requirements is bullshit, i agree.)

Sweden, oh it's frowned upon, and maybe seen as less than ideal behavior, but my point is, there is no law forbidding it. Assuming that with the "western world" the post refers to the US, to my knowledge, there is no grounds for arresting a man for being topless, while there is for women. As long as there are laws that work differently depending on the floppiness of the individuals sex, equality between the sexes is impossible.

well yes, it does, so does the idea that women should be in the kitchen, as they are biologically weaker than men, it makes sense that women take care of the home while men go out to work, and yet one of the bigger victories in the name of equality is to abolish laws that prevented women from doing the same things as men.

Same thing with women in the army, it's just recently that the US military has started to really push for getting active female soldier in number, and yet, there is an undeniable biological difference between men and women.

Hell, the idea that women shouldn't be allowed to vote was also based on a biological difference, as most of old politics was about things that primarily effected men(work, wars, etcetera), as such, the right to vote got rid of something imposed due to a biological difference.

Hell, in Sweden, until around the 70's, women would frequently go to the beach topless, and guess what? they didn't spontaneously explode due to biological differences between men and women.

Yes, there is a biological difference between men and women, but there is no reason for there to be a law that states women's nipples=illegal, men's nipples=legal.

Nor did i claim what they did was good, but it is undeniable that allowing women into the army, when they were previously barred, is something done for "equality".(but lowering the requirements is bullshit, i agree.)

Sweden, oh it's frowned upon, and maybe seen as less than ideal behavior, but my point is, there is no law forbidding it. Assuming that with the "western world" the post refers to the US, to my knowledge, there is no grounds for arresting a man for being topless, while there is for women. As long as there are laws that work differently depending on the floppiness of the individuals sex, equality between the sexes is impossible.

It's a biological difference, brah, do you want to build urinaries in the women's bathroom too?

yes, you are right, the law preventing women from walking topless down the streets is a biological difference, i forgot that laws are organically grown, and not set in place by society.

And no, i want urinals to go the way of the fucking dodo, they are unhygienic filth and hold no place in civilized society.

well yes, it does, so does the idea that women should be in the kitchen, as they are biologically weaker than men, it makes sense that women take care of the home while men go out to work, and yet one of the bigger victories in the name of equality is to abolish laws that prevented women from doing the same things as men.

Same thing with women in the army, it's just recently that the US military has started to really push for getting active female soldier in number, and yet, there is an undeniable biological difference between men and women.

Hell, the idea that women shouldn't be allowed to vote was also based on a biological difference, as most of old politics was about things that primarily effected men(work, wars, etcetera), as such, the right to vote got rid of something imposed due to a biological difference.

Hell, in Sweden, until around the 70's, women would frequently go to the beach topless, and guess what? they didn't spontaneously explode due to biological differences between men and women.

Yes, there is a biological difference between men and women, but there is no reason for there to be a law that states women's nipples=illegal, men's nipples=legal.

Nor did i claim what they did was good, but it is undeniable that allowing women into the army, when they were previously barred, is something done for "equality".(but lowering the requirements is bullshit, i agree.)

Sweden, oh it's frowned upon, and maybe seen as less than ideal behavior, but my point is, there is no law forbidding it. Assuming that with the "western world" the post refers to the US, to my knowledge, there is no grounds for arresting a man for being topless, while there is for women. As long as there are laws that work differently depending on the floppiness of the individuals sex, equality between the sexes is impossible.

exactly, as such women are not equal to men.

It's a biological difference, brah, do you want to build urinaries in the women's bathroom too?

yes, you are right, the law preventing women from walking topless down the streets is a biological difference, i forgot that laws are organically grown, and not set in place by society.

And no, i want urinals to go the way of the fucking dodo, they are unhygienic filth and hold no place in civilized society.

well yes, it does, so does the idea that women should be in the kitchen, as they are biologically weaker than men, it makes sense that women take care of the home while men go out to work, and yet one of the bigger victories in the name of equality is to abolish laws that prevented women from doing the same things as men.

Same thing with women in the army, it's just recently that the US military has started to really push for getting active female soldier in number, and yet, there is an undeniable biological difference between men and women.

Hell, the idea that women shouldn't be allowed to vote was also based on a biological difference, as most of old politics was about things that primarily effected men(work, wars, etcetera), as such, the right to vote got rid of something imposed due to a biological difference.

Hell, in Sweden, until around the 70's, women would frequently go to the beach topless, and guess what? they didn't spontaneously explode due to biological differences between men and women.

Yes, there is a biological difference between men and women, but there is no reason for there to be a law that states women's nipples=illegal, men's nipples=legal.

Nor did i claim what they did was good, but it is undeniable that allowing women into the army, when they were previously barred, is something done for "equality".(but lowering the requirements is bullshit, i agree.)

Sweden, oh it's frowned upon, and maybe seen as less than ideal behavior, but my point is, there is no law forbidding it. Assuming that with the "western world" the post refers to the US, to my knowledge, there is no grounds for arresting a man for being topless, while there is for women. As long as there are laws that work differently depending on the floppiness of the individuals sex, equality between the sexes is impossible.

That is, it might have been the crusade were Aun'va died, not that he died in the domacles crusade(he wasn't born yet, and had at that point spent the last 45 years of his then 300 years of 100 year long life training o'sovah and o'kais, who at that point had yet to have been born for another 200 years.)

10 000 legions is the number of troops deployed at Cadia to protect the imperium from chaos. And yes, in general it isn't much, but moving 10 000 legions to one place removes them from others, if it was just tau vs the imperium, yeah, the imperium would win, but pretty much everything not human wants the imperium gone.

I know that there was a crusade, where the numbers of imperial troops were 10000 imperial legions, 3 space marine chapters, and 3 titan legions, i also know that in one of the later tau supplements, this crusade was stated as having been completely wiped out. The problem is, i can't fucking find the source of it, and it's getting tot he point where i am legit starting to doubt my own memory, so... fuck it.

It MIGHT be the tau crusade against the domacles gulf(250 years after the original crusade, the one where Aun'va died, making him the first named character to die canonically since... fuck, 1999?), but all I'm finding about that is fan-written stuff with no clear sources.

Oh, and they already have stuff bigger than the riptide, such as the KX139, XV107, XV95, and the XV128.

That is, it might have been the crusade were Aun'va died, not that he died in the domacles crusade(he wasn't born yet, and had at that point spent the last 45 years of his then 300 years of 100 year long life training o'sovah and o'kais, who at that point had yet to have been born for another 200 years.)

exactly. The tau have no reason at all to pick a fight with the imperium, as they can just as easily bide their time, watching as the bloated corpse of the imperium slowly rots away, eventually rising up to claim the universe(and then fail, have a tau flavored dark age of tech event, and repeat history all over again, or get nommed by the nids, whichever.)

Oh is that why they sent, and lost, 10000 legions of imperial guard, 3 titan legions, and 3 space marine chapters to wipe them out? The same numbers that defend the eye of terror btw, so i suppose that chaos isn't a threat either.

10 000 legions is the number of troops deployed at Cadia to protect the imperium from chaos. And yes, in general it isn't much, but moving 10 000 legions to one place removes them from others, if it was just tau vs the imperium, yeah, the imperium would win, but pretty much everything not human wants the imperium gone.

I know that there was a crusade, where the numbers of imperial troops were 10000 imperial legions, 3 space marine chapters, and 3 titan legions, i also know that in one of the later tau supplements, this crusade was stated as having been completely wiped out. The problem is, i can't fucking find the source of it, and it's getting tot he point where i am legit starting to doubt my own memory, so... fuck it.

It MIGHT be the tau crusade against the domacles gulf(250 years after the original crusade, the one where Aun'va died, making him the first named character to die canonically since... fuck, 1999?), but all I'm finding about that is fan-written stuff with no clear sources.

Oh, and they already have stuff bigger than the riptide, such as the KX139, XV107, XV95, and the XV128.

That is, it might have been the crusade were Aun'va died, not that he died in the domacles crusade(he wasn't born yet, and had at that point spent the last 45 years of his then 300 years of 100 year long life training o'sovah and o'kais, who at that point had yet to have been born for another 200 years.)

exactly. The tau have no reason at all to pick a fight with the imperium, as they can just as easily bide their time, watching as the bloated corpse of the imperium slowly rots away, eventually rising up to claim the universe(and then fail, have a tau flavored dark age of tech event, and repeat history all over again, or get nommed by the nids, whichever.)

1: i am perfectly aware of this, and yet said crossovers keep happening.
2: the only thing i have ever complained about in terms of undertale is how unnecessary some parts of the tutorial are(pushing the rocks, the rooms that are the same with different perspectives, and the floor where you must follow a pattern or fall through, neither of which are ever seen again outside the ruins), and the music in the start of the game, which gave me a minor headache after about 5 minutes. actual spoiler btw -> Oh, and also that you couldn't save Asriel.
3: i know, i never said it wasn't.
4: i know, most of the fandom is perfectly fine, just as how most feminists are fine, most atheists are fine, most theists are fine, most muslims are fine, etcetera. Small vocal groups ruin it for everyone when it comes to everything.

I was thinking that she'd have at least one, but I think they're supposed to just be the companions they had which is why she has the bird.

But, I dunno. Cinderella would have a bunch of mice if that was the case I guess.