deleted by creator

Strange times that your comment is both wrong and perfectly sensible.

Single combat?

deleted by creator

🎶 Iiiinn west Philippine Sea born and raised.

I feel like you are neither fully appreciating the scope of the control exerted over them nor the scale of the distances and hostility of terrain. I understand the sentiment, but what you’re suggesting is essentially tantamount to suicide. That may itself have merit, but call it what it is.

It doesn’t mean that. Your inability or refusal to read a dictionary is your issue to deal with. I’ve lead you to the information. Now you just sound like a flat earther.

Every place that has ever been settled, has been settled at least once without inhabitants. You can use low order logic to arrive at that conclusion. But you don’t need to, as you are alive in the 21st century and seem to have access to the internet. Just go look at a dictionary. It is the only thing relevant here because a word’s definition is the only thing about which I have made assertions. If you are arguing connotative implications, I’ve already made it clear I have no issue with that.

If you just like to argue nonsense positions to hear your keyboard clack, cool. Have fun with that.

the dictionary doesn’t explain the etymology, nuance and history

One example since 1900

So… does history matter here or not? Tough to set those goalposts is a way that isn’t paradoxical.

And no, I’m not going to contrive some example within your stringent framework because as far as I know one doesn’t exist. But, then I can’t think of any examples where humans moved in somewhere without breathable air either, so the presence of breathable air must be included in the definition of settle too, right? Do you realize how foolish your claim sounds. Just to clarify, I’m only asserting that “to settle” doesn’t require the taking of others land by definition. I said it does generally involve that because all habitable land is currently inhabited, but that is the only reason.

Binary question, does the term require taking land from others? Really think about that. Just because two things are related, even if inextricably linked, doesn’t mean the terms are unified to the same meaning. Just because we all breathe air doesn’t mean “to breathe” requires air. In fact, fish breathe quite differently. Eating generally involves chewing, but does the term “eat” necessitate chewing? Surely not, since many animals swallow food whole. Don’t some animals like birds, bees, wasps, opportunistic ants “settle” places after previous tenants have moved out of a location?

If a people migrated entirely out of a land, would the next people that made use of the land not be “settling” that land since they weren’t taking it? It sure feels to me like that is what you’re saying, and if you aren’t, then we don’t disagree. Settling is about coming to inhabit a place whether or not it is currently inhabited.

Every place that is currently inhabited was settled at least one time when no others lived there. It really doesn’t matter that you want to set the goalposts somewhere that fits some niche definition you are cultivating. You simply don’t seem to know what the word means.

I get that you believe that the term “settle” implies expelling others from a land, and if that were the case, you’d have a point. But I wonder if you’ve considered consulting a dictionary and the possibility that you’re mistaken.

What I’m saying is that “settlers” is a superset of what is happening here, since “settle” doesn’t imply anything beyond:

to establish in residence

to furnish with inhabitants – https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/settle

to arrive, especially from another country, in a new place and start to live there and use the land – https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/settle

I’ve no doubt that you’ll push back on this and claim the definition in your head is better than those found in dictionaries, but the rest of us are just aware what it means.

I’m not saying another is needed necessarily, but that others may be more precise. Colonizers, for example, may be so. Settlers is a superset here, and the only reason it nearly always involves occupied land is because most habitable land is currently inhabited. Imagine that we begin to settle Mars, hypothetically. That would be settling without taking the land others are occupying. So the word is just imprecise.

I don’t think the term settler requires the land already be occupied, though it often is so there is that connotation. But there are better words to describe explicitly the invasion of land.

Religion

Heck! I was going to that. Girls made outfits and like a million bracelets. Sad.

SPF500 too.

Wait, so you’re saying the trip to the national anthropology museum was for work? Maybe.

Would she not be considered a tourist for her trip to Mexico City?

Greg would.

Alternative proposal: While your net worth exceeds some function of GDP, laws do not protect you. Find a way to offload those stocks, or keep your head on a swivel.

Exited? Or were you just a youngin at the time?