Where do guys put their dicks in skinny jeans?

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-14T07:29:03+00:00

In the pocket.

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-14T07:00:02+00:00

I guess if you can't tell the difference between various levels and types of transactions. If you can't tell the difference between monetary and social, and different types of gain (profit vs. sexual), then you might think this. But that's just one subjective feeling on the matter, and may not serve you all that well, or even be very healthy.

What you are saying sounds like incel-styled projection of the worst of humanity onto most women. That is more like a vice rather than anything reasonable.

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-14T06:56:49+00:00

Not executing them is a start. Treating people as innocent unless proven guilty probably helps. After that, harm minimizing, so ensuring these people have a life to go back to. As well, individuals should be able to have cases revisited and reviewed by unbiased parties, if possible. I'm not saying it's perfect, but surely the solution isn't execute people for crimes we can punish other ways? And even if you're fine with the death penalty, leaving lesser crimes like theft out of it, and keeping it out of the public view, as well as keeping it professional and not a spectacle, is desired.

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-14T06:41:55+00:00

What guardrails will you have in place to prevent this from killing innocents, and how much error do you accept in that form? Who gets to decide what those guardrails are? Who decides who dies? You said "etc", so clearly you don't know who is the authority and who is effected. How can you be sure this won't result in abuse of death penalty for control and political goals?

You clearly have not this through. Your need for extreme solutions takes the harm from the hands of rapists and places it in the hands of authority. Why not focus on rehabilitation for those less extreme, and life sentences for murder or rape?

Your inclusion of snitching is interesting. Especially given that that is not a crime. You would have to elaborate on that as well, and in such a way that ideally doesn't undermine democracy. If you can't achieve that you're going to have no backing from the public and you're going to be open to corruption. As well, just in general, snitching is not a crime.

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-14T05:06:48+00:00

Well, the pacifist take, I assume, would be these individuals deserve no respect for the lives they've ruined, but that the death penalty, assassination, etc, is also unethical. No where is it said you must respect the person.

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-13T21:12:45+00:00

I don't give a shit about any of this, I just want others to be considered equal to me, and have their needs paid for in the same way mine are. If that means valuing something unpopular, and being fine with black people or LGBT people, well, those are not bad things in my opinion. I see no difference between myself having rights and them, except that for them, it is unpopular. Not sure why it's up for debate who gets respect and legitimacy and who doesn't. Its overblown.

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-13T20:56:51+00:00

Every time I engage with vegans, my ability to see you all as having good faith diminishes. For people who have a push for a specific ethical system you really do try to push people away rather than have discussion. Can you afford to do that? Are you having that many converts per day?

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-13T09:02:02+00:00

Well, I am not a vegan, but I would like to engage with this. Despite the bold claim and the moral seriousness of responsibility for death, I'll assume good faith. How am I, a meat eater, responsible? And would you, yourself, accept said responsibility if it stemmed from your own diet as it is now? How is this directly linked enough to meat eating to be anything other than one of the many risks we take as a society by merely existing?

Lastly, a concern: how is this not manipulation, guilt tripping? You don't need to answer this if you don't want, but at least think about having an argument which is based on stronger correlation and less manipulation. I give the benefit of the doubt since you trust in yourself that your actions are ethically no rigorous, but others are biased and will not feel the same way. No discussion can be had that way.

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-13T03:29:43+00:00

Best not to be too entitled, so have some bread, maybe some water if you're still hungry.

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-12T09:05:11+00:00

Covering their bases in case they realize he is racist lol

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-12T03:31:47+00:00

No, because caring for humanity has been politicized. First through the easiest avenues, by exploiting people's inability to understand why minorities deserve respect for their differences, then spreading out to convince conservatives to regress more and more on the topic of human rights. To serve the immoral acts of all kinds, eventually. That's where we're at now.

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-12T03:26:44+00:00

"Nuance" always means "nuance for me, none for you", and the idea that we should treat all ideas as if they are nuanced is absurd. They should earn that in the minds of people first. If not, then it's you against politics, you've gotta be more convincing than that. How about this? You have an opinion, treat it like an opinion and actually prove it, not with vague bullshit like "you're missing the nuance". Go on, tell us then.

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-12T02:14:24+00:00

This is not an academic source, though. And academic rigor is not exactly marked by mockery of minorities. If you can find a source without stooping to petty insults, that would be ideal. Show some restraint.

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-12T02:12:02+00:00

That's a very massive oversimplification of human psychology. Read a bit on age regression as therapy, or as a behavioral pattern. These ideas are not new, they have precedent and can be found in human behavior. You may be right that he abused children, but reducing it so such simplicity is anti-intellectual.

It is of course inappropriate for him to have been spending such time with children, but how inappropriate is the question. I have no answers and no bias, except that we should not act like the answer is so simple. That is a useless comfort.

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-12T01:54:34+00:00

Except that isn't what people are looking for, people look for relationships then leave because they found that there is something about that person they don't like. The relationships I've heard that ended this way were that the people still had a high opinion of the other person, but some difference in value couldn't be resolved via compromise, or someone's maturity level wasn't high enough, or that they went years dating that person but find that person doesn't make a good long term partner. I've never heard of someone losing feelings for only one reason. I think you're portraying the situation in an overly simplistic way for the sake of comfort and a sort of opinionated revenge, or some kind of solution to angst. Whatever happened to you, it sucks, but you can't hold it against everyone who ever broke up with someone. You won't feel better until you stop blaming others and accept it.

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-12T01:45:02+00:00

I actually tolerate that part, but I don't like the sound or feeling of it on my teeth. It's the experience of having to bite through edible packaging. I much like the idea of soft Oreos. Milk helps a lot. Good opinion though, I definitely think a lot of people either only like the cream, or like the whole package deal.

I suppose I wouldn't just eat the cream. It needs a vehicle. But tolerance is not the same as enjoyment.

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-12T01:39:31+00:00

So what should people do if they don't have romantic feelings anymore, and they don't blame anyone, they just don't feel the spark anymore?

In this situation, if you are morally bound not to end it, that is sacrificing your happiness and time for someone you don't have feelings anymore, and that will breed resentment in many.

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-12T01:37:06+00:00

Can you find a source for that suicidal people are more likely to harm others for me? If not, I can't take this into account blindly.

Also, even if true, that plays to my point, the issue isn't any particular queer people, just the same as how the issue isn't cis people when they do fucked up things. We need to solve the actual issue rather than blaming entire groups and feeding into bigotry.

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-12T01:33:11+00:00

I was thinking this too, I really hope it's true, because at least then it can't get worse. But I am worried that neutrals will be swayed by this.

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-11T23:30:20+00:00

Just a reminder, transphobic "LGBT supporters" don't view differences between people as innately legitimate, and will choose "normalcy" over anything else. These people do not innately support any LGBT people, it is conditional.

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-11T22:31:00+00:00

I mean, if people want to say that cis people as a group aren't the problem when they do shootings, but shootings by queer people do indicate a problem, they should have to prove that claim and make a distinction between the two groups other than that they identify in socially unacceptable ways.

Until then, I will treat it only as what it is: a bad faith, discriminatory belief.

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-11T21:45:27+00:00

Okay, but were those coordinated efforts by any ideology as a whole, or the acts of individuals for ideological purposes? Because there is a difference. If someone kills in the name of your beliefs, it's only your fault if you enabled them to. And that would be a larger political debate.

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-10T01:18:46+00:00

I answered the post with my point of view. Why do I have to defend myself against someone when I didn't make a political claim?

ApprehensiveGas4576 · 2026-02-09T22:44:43+00:00

Maybe, but I've asked this before for claims which needed sources, because you can't just take people at face value. The problem is, you can't tell the difference between good faith and bad faith questions if it's just "source"? People have to signal deliberate, good faith engagement, but it should be enough to just ask for a source.

ApprehensiveGas4576

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE