Non native English speaker here with a genuine question; wouldn’t “telling the students whom I married” mean that the teacher married the students instead of telling students about their spouse?

I mean being romantic or sexual carries some other connotations and meanings making them ambiguous in many situations if used as the antonym to the asexual and aromantic label.
I don’t really care what words are used for it but I find the allo ones useful as they are the most commonly understood ones and are unambiguous.

Unfortunately I am still unable to find any stories that tells what happens to the Hamas members after their surrender. I’m unsure if they get treated well or are sent to the same facilities in which there are reports of human rights violations amounting to psykological and physical torture.

I did find some examples of successful surenders, but nothing where hostages were explicitly mentioned to have sweetened the deal of surrender.
I do believe you may be right but I have been unable to verify it myself.

Are there any examples of it being used successfully and the aftermath of it? This is a genuine question stemming from my own ignorance on the subject. I would really like for that to be a good way of handeling situations where hostages are released, but I could easily understand why a member of Hamas might have reservations if they do not have reason to trust the system.
If there is good reason to trust it I will agree that that would have been a viable and good way out and should have been used.

To me it sounded like they were specifically pushing against a claim that Hamas offered to free everyone. They pointed out that they only said civilians and as not all hostages would be considered civilians not all hostages would have been freed as another commenter claimed.

I still see it as them pushing back against an “Hamas was good actually” sentiment, arguing that Hamas was not as good as implied due to a careful reading of the statement and an assessment of the hostages and whether all were civilian or would be considered civilian by Hamas.

There is a greater context, but the thread in which this was written the context was a push back against claims portraying Hamas favorably.

Do you really believe that any member of hamas would be safe just because they let some hostages go? How would that work? Should they surrender themselves to the IDF while delivering the hostages, just notify them of where they are so they won’t be bombed or how would that all work?

How were they doing that? To me it seemed like their point was a distinction between all hostages and civilian ones being released. I don’t know if they are correct, but I cannot see how it in any way dehumanizes anyone.

It’s free, so don’t let that stop you, but it is very fair if you want a more complete experience before trying it out.

(It is paid on steam as a way to suport the game, but free downloads can be found on their website)

I would say yes and no. It is a game about evolution with some similarities but it is very focused on a realistic representation of evolution. This makes it a more complex game than spore and actively encourages many different niches not just agressive, peaceful and mixed as spore did.

Aldo currently they are working on finishong the cell stage and the beginning of the multicellular stage while have more in deapth discussion about the transition between the microscopic and macroscopic phases among other things.

So god cannot create a world with free will and without evil?

So god could kill as many innocents unjustly as he wants, as long as he sends them to paradise after?
If so, it seems, any atrocity god commits could be justified.