it does when the whole thing ties up with the ethos of not spilling blood, caring for the planet, yada yada yada.
Yet again, you attempt to speak with authority on the meaning of a word that you have defined as subjective and useless. I gave you a clear definition and you dismissed it because it doesn't suit your argument. It's bizarre to me to be told what my ethos is by someone who clearly doesn't fully understand it.
Ultimately, you have based your thesis on a sloppy definition of a set of words that you have also defined as useless. This undermines the logical consistency of your overall argument.
Alas, at this point we seem to be rehashing the same arguments, so I'll leave the last comment to you if you like. Good sparring. Peace.
Your definition is not better than mine or anyone's else's. this is what you don't get. we are trying to find a common ground on inclusiveness on characteristics, not exclusive close circle definitions.