Answer:
Masculine
Explanation:
Under communication skills, there are different type of communication styles that has a bearing on the individual gender or physical characteristics who is communicating. Within cultural institutions, there are different communication-styles between genders exist due to disagreements in the way information is conveyed and how it is received by the gender involved. It is a common knowledge that male adopt a masculine communication style by displaying certain competitive traits, are more authoritative, more mission focused, dominance and are focus more on performance, while female communication styles have a tendency to be more circular focused, more likely to think or react to situations based on emotions.
Therefore based on different communication styles found in males and females, the scenario where Thomas suggests a video-game contest to his sister and She says, "Bring it on, I'm gonna whoop you." shows a predominant trait associated with a male under communication skill by displaying certain competitive traits, a more authoritative, sort of egocentric dominance. Thomas sister communication style in this incident is Masculine communication style
Anselm argued that an ideal being is important to exist. during this argument God is an excellent being thus he should exist that is understood because of the ontological argument. Guanilo thought this argument was absurd and he viewed the other. one thing doesn't exist simply because it's excellent and he used the instance of an ideal island. The island is ideal thus in step with Anselm's view it ought to exist however the island stop to exist thus Guanilo planned this argument to be reductio ad absurdum. as compared they each agree that as a result, of one thing is ideal it doesn't exist however in distinction saint believed that God was an exception to the present because God is a whole totally different matter and Gaunilo doesn't believe God is an exception to the present view, though he Guanilo believes in God he doesn't consider the ontological argument as proof of Gods existence.
Answer:
Babur.
Explanation:
Babur (1483-1530) was a conqueror and warrior and he founded the Mughal Empire in India. Babur was a descendant from the famous Turkic conqueror Timur The Lame. On his mother´s side, his family line descended from Gengis Khan. His first conquests as emir of Ferghana were made in Central Asia, including Samarkand in today´s Uzbekistan, but he lost them because of power intrigues and betrayals. However, his great chance came in India, where he coveted the Delhi Sultanate. He defeated the army of sultan Ibrahim Lodi and took his throne in 1526. This is the beginning of the Mughal Empire.
There is no objective answer to this question, as both sides have arguments that support their views.
If you believe that you are bound by Hobbes' argument, it is because of tacit consent. Tacit consent means that, even though you have not explicitly agreed to follow laws, you have indicated your agreement through other means, for example, by using the public services of the government or by remaining within the limits of your country. Also, you could argue that any rational person would prefer to follow the rules of the government than to live in the state of nature. Therefore, if you are rational, your consent is assumed. Finally, you could also argue that while you did not explicitly agreed, maybe your ancestors did, which still binds you as a member of the same society.
On the other hand, if you believe that you are not bound by Hobbes' argument, you could argue that any contract that is not freely agreed upon is not valid. As the government uses force to make you act according to the law, you cannot be considered to be freely consenting. Also, you can argue that agreeing to follow some rules does not imply following <em>all</em> of the laws of the country. Finally, a common argument against Hobbes is the lack of empirical data. As we do not know if the state of nature is actually bad, or if the contract ever happened, the government cannot gain its legitimacy in that way.
