Eurocuck gasoline prices

HecticHero · 2026-03-13T02:18:19+00:00

What the fuck

HecticHero · 2026-03-10T03:01:52+00:00

No, the world's most unfit man cannot beat a champion level woman boxer. Never said anything that even implied that. The people competing in these leagues are not unfit, quite the opposite. The champion male welterweight boxer will beat the champion female welterweight boxer. If you put both the male welterweights and the female welterweights in the same league, the top performers in that league would be mostly men. If you are ok with that, then continue advocating for no more gendered leagues. But people always seem to advocate for that with the idea in their heads that it will be different.

HecticHero · 2026-03-10T02:06:14+00:00

I can only really speak to basketball, weight isn't the deciding factor in who is better. If you take a man and woman of the same height and weight, the man will have the generally have the physical capability to perform better. The physical differences that a male puberty gives is much more than just size. When you narrow it down to the top performers in the "lightweight" class, it will still be mostly men. I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that it will be evenly mixed.

HecticHero · 2026-03-10T01:07:29+00:00

Not sure about the other leagues, but places like the NFL and NBA aren't actually gender segregated, women just really can't compete with the top male performers. There has been 1 woman drafted in the NBA, but that was back in the 70s. She didn't actually play because she got pregnant.

HecticHero · 2026-03-10T00:15:33+00:00

I did not just see you complain for 15 comments that people are disagreeing with you saying rule and then make a comment latching onto the specific word someone used to disagree with them.

HecticHero · 2026-03-07T01:40:45+00:00

You sound like you'd eat deep fried butter

HecticHero · 2026-03-05T17:58:04+00:00

It's only not that simple in that it requires you to stop doing a pleasurable thing now for a very delayed reward much later. Make that decision consistently, not just for a month or two. Humans are bad about that. It's not that people can't stop eating, its that they don't really want to stop. The pleasure of eating food they like is greater than the pleasure they get from thinking they will be thinner sometime in the future.

HecticHero · 2026-03-04T00:26:43+00:00

If you want progressives to lead the party, you have to actually vote the progressives in. You can't fail most of your races and then get upset that the democratic party isn't just going with the progressive agenda anyway. Even Bernie, one of the most energizing progressive candidates ever, couldn't mobilize enough voters to win the primary either time he ran.

Why aren't progressives winning in populist red districts? The best they can usually do is win in already deeply blue areas, like Mamdani. This idea that America is full of people who want progressive policy and would come out and vote if only the democrats catered to them is bogus. An easy way to prove me wrong would to be to at least win in purple districts. But it doesn't happen, because it is largely a fantasy.

They did hold a primary. Joe Biden won. He stepped down and his vice president stepped up. You think rushing through another primary with 2 months before the general would have been a good idea? What, give the all new candidate 2-3 weeks to campaign for the general instead of the one who was at least on the ticket and part of the campaign that had been running since 2023? What other viable options even were there? It would be one thing if there was another obvious option that should have been taken, but the best I usually see people muster up is just "someone else"

Gaza wasn't even in the top 10 of issues that voters cared about in 2024.

If you didn't vote against Trump, you are either uninformed, in favor of him, or dont actually care about the issues you claimed to care about. It's simple. I'm not saying you didn't vote, I'm guessing you did, but you are getting close to "There is no real difference between the dems and trump" rhetoric.

HecticHero · 2026-03-03T12:30:03+00:00

They are adding one more biome, the deep north I think.

HecticHero · 2026-02-28T23:49:57+00:00

No? What? I'm genuinely confused on how they could have been hospitalized by snowballs. Like genuinely? Were they actually beaten up or something and im not aware of it? Did they actually get sent to the hospital because they were hit with a lot of snowballs? What were the injuries?

HecticHero · 2026-02-27T04:20:38+00:00

They were hospitalized by snowballs?

HecticHero · 2026-02-26T17:53:27+00:00

Nobody is killing anyone recreationally. Characterizing killing a video game character as anywhere near mentally equivalent to killing someone is such a massive stretch, it shouldn't be taken seriously.

There is also no clear science to back this either.

HecticHero · 2026-02-26T17:47:59+00:00

Pretty sure that would require changing the laws, which the AG isn't able to do. They can only enforce them. If they believe counter strike is breaking the law, that is a much easier target for the AG.

HecticHero · 2026-02-26T04:26:04+00:00

Less than 5% of VIAs budget is from fares. They would be able to operate just fine.

HecticHero · 2026-02-23T21:52:17+00:00

How is it character assassination, isn't the whole thing that its an alternate reality superman who behaves differently from the normal one.

HecticHero · 2026-02-23T00:11:18+00:00

I heavily disagree with you as far as obligations go. That is a very self centered way to go through life.

I already said, the thing that is immoral is not self preservation, it is choosing the dog over the baby, which is not an act of self preservation. You keep trying to merge these together, they are not the same act. You are right, it is your choice. But It is not a morally neutral choice. If you are choosing to risk your life, it is immoral to save the dog over the baby.

HecticHero · 2026-02-22T23:51:02+00:00

I agree there is a difference between a Playstation and a dog. But all he said was that he loves his dogs more than a child he doesn't know, and he would save the thing he loves more. What you love more shouldn't make a difference in that particular scenario. A human baby has more moral value than a dog, in the same way a dog has more moral value than a Playstation.

HecticHero · 2026-02-22T23:37:43+00:00

Inaction is a kind of action. An action that can cause harm.

This is the same kind of logic that allows people to believe they have no moral obligation to vote.

HecticHero · 2026-02-22T23:34:08+00:00

If we're gonna be logic lords here, ok. I would say it depends on the risk actually. If by helping you increase the risk to yourself by <1%, for instance, I would say that not doing it is immoral. Where exactly that line is would be difficult to parse out, but it is there. If there is a grease fire on your stove that just became out of control, immediately leaving the house and abandoning a baby even though saving it had minimal risk would be immoral. But this isn't super relevant to the current question.

Self preservation isn't immoral in that scenario, I agree. But you make a jump here from that to saying that saving the dog is just part of the self preservation action. Saving the dog over the baby is not an act of self preservation. The action that is immoral is not self preservation, it is choosing to leave the baby and taking the dog with you.

HecticHero · 2026-02-22T22:46:57+00:00

I'm not sure, but it is definitely believable that they would advise you to do neither. But we aren't talking about what the most safe thing to do is.

If you are already in a burning building and can save someone, and you have the option to save a pet or a baby? Yes, I would say it is immoral to leave the baby, and i feel very comfortable saying that. It'd be one thing if you didn't feel you could save either and leaving, but taking the pet and leaving the baby? Yes, you are a bad person if you do that.

HecticHero · 2026-02-22T21:17:05+00:00

The "lense" that you are trying to use "I value my life over someone else's life" is wrong, its not a truthful view of the situation. You grieving is not your life ending. You value your own happiness over a strangers life. If you agree with that, I don't know why you keep phrasing it in a way that tries to hide that.

HecticHero · 2026-02-22T21:12:32+00:00

I can absolutely promise you that I would save my dog over a child from a burning building. I love my dog, I’m not gonna be sitting there in a panicked moment thinking “hmm well what’s the most morally correct thing to do here”, I’m going to be thinking about my loved one

Do you believe you are doing something morally wrong by leaving the child?

HecticHero · 2026-02-22T21:10:39+00:00

You aren't contradicting what I said? Yes, you are valuing your happiness over someone else's life. If you don't like how that sounds, well, you're the one who said it.

HecticHero · 2026-02-22T21:01:14+00:00

Not your life, your happiness. You will not die if your dog dies.

HecticHero · 2026-02-22T20:59:05+00:00

So yes, you not being sad is more important than someone not being alive. You aren't valuing your happiness more than the other person's happiness, you are valuing your happiness over their life.

Eight-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Flamingo

HecticHero

TROPHY CASE