The problem I see with some of these is the fact that once you start planning and consider using something as a weapon then you are unable to even touch or use it. Egwenes strike was a spur of the moment action, when she thought about using the jug to attack the Sul'Damane she was unable to then even touch it till she accepted she would not use it as a weapon. It would be very hard to lie to yourself well enough to consider a killing blow without triggering that reaction. The best way I think would be simply attempting to withhold your abilities during a dangerous situation. Although I don't think they used the Damane in battle till they were fully trained so you would need to hide the fact that you had not been broken which appeared to be very difficult.

Sure seemed like you were defending it, at the very least you were granting it far more acceptance when the reasons for the actions are identical. Religion (and atheism for that matter) can appear in movies and stories I just don't see the need for it to be an active inclusion policy. You choose what you believe in and you should be judged on what those things use as a framework for their beliefs, teachings and actions. That is why I said before that I think that inclusion should be limited to innate traits. I am assuming you are against inclusion for those Malaysian typ4 extremists yet as you said before You talk about close minded yet you have been abundantly keen throughout this to peg me as a christo facist bigot

Twisting of words does not make for a good argument you are correct. You choose to attack a fringe sect of Islam for what you deem as being misguided yet then defend Judaism for male circumcision hiding behind a medical argument. Pretending that they are performing this for medical reasons is a completely disingenuous argument. They are doing it for the exact same reason that the Malaysian muslims are because they believe that their god wants them too. Marriage is not hard it's simply informed consent. You again seem to think I am a christian for some unknown reason despite my clear and unmissable criticism of their teaching in my previous posts. I would more accurately describe my thoughts on religion as following those of Dawkins, Fry, Harris, Hitchens and company.

It's not just fringe and extremist religions that teach homophobia, transphobia, genocide and genital mutilation its all the major ones as well. I don't see why your choice to follow those beliefs needs to be included in an inclusion policy. You falsely claimed that samt equated skin color to child mutilation yet are happy to include religions that practices exactly this act to this day. Most of this has been about getting a definition for what people deem as inclusion and if you look back you have been the one name calling. I would like for you to find a quote from me arguing against inclusion on gender, race or sexual lines.

Ok so religion is in so that means that you are in fact in favour of inclusion of views that support genital mutilation, homophobia, transphobia and genocide. I think that for the purposes of the definition of inclusion taken in this setting it should be for a person's innate traits only. Everything beyond this is selective. You choose to be a christian, nazi, racist or scientologist. If there is a demonstrated and demonstrably unfair bias against a group I have no issue with attempts to redress that imbalance. Your read that I am right wing or on the conservative side of politics is hilariously incorrect.

I think accusing him of that is a stretch. It seems to me that the main sticking point is the definition of inclusion. Do you for example include religion in your definition as expat does above?

Well that clears it up inclusion is not bad except when it is.

might want to have a talk with the Jack Reacher fans about that.

Really not sure about the outfit they have Mat wearing. And the extra is the same guy in the 2 different shots of Nyn and the group of 3 both times standing arms held outraised with different things in his hands. Does not look very natural.