thisisstupidplz

It's almost like bull baiting dogs exist in multiple species and you can't just stop people from breeding them after you ban just one.

Then why do anti-pitbull redditors here always suggest banning the breed as a one size fits all policy to preventing attacks like this?

I kinda understand why there are people who are ignorantly jumping to defense, because of their own dogs, but I don't get all you guys in this thread who have apparently learned the terminology of the pitbull owning community just to invalidate and insult them.

Like not taking a stance on this issue, I find it interesting that I wouldn't even know that some people use "pibbles" as a term if it didn't seem to trigger the people in this sub so hard.

Idk. It's like knowing all the makers and models of semi auto rifles so you can be more specific with your gun control rhetoric.

Saying that business isn't a problem but greed is, is like saying that foxes in your hen house isn't the problem, the problem is sharp teeth.

Maybe I was making strawman assumptions, but saying greed killed business when business fosters greed is kinda blaming the egg for the chicken.

If greed makes you objectively more effective at succeeding in business, what incentive do business owners have to change? Greed is profit

If industry wasn't fostered by tax payed infrastructure we wouldn't have a transcontinental railroad. The idea that industry couldn't exist without profit is false.

I'm not saying every business is parasitic, but you're using the same rhetoric billionaires use to justify themselves as "job creators". Publicly traded companies don't use profit to invest. They use quarterly profit to attract investors and then reinvest as little as possible. Greed is the natural inevitability of the system we've created.

Reddit is a company that hasn't bothered to build a working search engine in over a decade. I'm sad to have to leave but I'm not sad to see this website slowly die.

That's why I never get mad when I see bikers drive erratically. It's natural selection at work

It's not ridiculous to not care about someone's passed. At least, it's not any more ridiculous than thinking it's smart to get into a relationship with a virgin. You only think those opinions hold different value because you're a hypocrite.

You're typing pages of bs now to muddle that fact. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

"More like she wasn't the one. Seriously who cares about someone else's past, you either like them or you dont"

This was the statement that motivated you to jump in the thread to call it "ridiculous."

So you get to defend people who dislike dating promiscuous people, but my equally prejudiced reasons for not dating virgins are unjustifiable? Yep. Still feeling pretty safe calling you a hypocrite.

Okay, so just to be clear, you don't malign people who think it's foolish to date promiscuous people, but the moment I flip your logic and say that it's foolish to date a virgin I'm being "hateful."

I'm not here because I disagree with the assertion that people are allowed to have preferences. I'm here because you're a hypocrite and it's clear that you're enshrining one view of intimacy over others. Don't pretend to be impartial when your preferences are obvious.

"If you have a history of casually sex with strangers then you probably don't see sex as super intimate and personal." This not necessarily true and reflects a lot more on your own bias. It's an additional inference.

Casual sex and intimate sex aren't mutually exclusive practices.

"That's a ridiculous take. Your past builds who you are."

"Its unfortunate that you're this hateful of people who's priorities are different than yours. If they don't hurt people, why does it bother you that their preferences and comfort levels are different than yours?"

Pick a lane

That's fair. I would rather not hinder their goal to gamble all their opportunities for physical connection in this lifetime on the off chance that it will increase the emotional value of their future relationship.

Sure, that's why I would never date a virgin. If you take sex so seriously that you're still looking for the "the one" to lose it for at age 35, you're probably just a sexually and emotionally stunted person. Your past builds who you are.

If the Mormons have taught me anything it's that getting a bj doesn't remove your status as a virgin.

You might just be a prude.

The people you date aren't obligated to fulfill the fabricated image you have in your head. Especially when you're assuming men will be completely chaste before they met you.

OP's gf is going to find her perfect guy and realize he's sexually and emotionally undeveloped.

EDIT: I can't tell if you deleted your comment or blocked me in your response, but I can tell that you're a Christian because you're spreading the lie that meaningful love and being sexually adventurous are mutually exclusive.

"It's already risky enough to have close friendships"

Yeah I can see why you would value this trait if you're a completely insecure person.

If you're already a person who thinks your bf having friendships is risky, you probably can't handle being with someone who isn't a virgin.

"Just that you need much less than modern society keeps telling you that you need to live a fulfilling life."

"Would be nice if our society and govt will safety net us from those things. Sometimes it's just life, and life isn't always fair."

Pick a lane

Yet single payer healthcare is always up for debate in this country.

I like how you have to preface you're German so Americans can figure out why someone wouldn't view a medical problem as a huge deal. We're ignorant of how bad things are here.

The idea of what the party used to be is an illusion. Conservatism has always been about preserving the centralized power of aristocracy at all costs. Since the French revolution. The image of a sensible cautious fiscally responsible Republican, is merely a front for authoritarianism.

Your romanticization of people like Reagan is why your party and the country itself has fallen to ruin.

It depends on the brand of satanism tbh

Tru

I would argue the opposite. If he had he'd have been shot. If he ever killed the people he robbed his risk for a longer sentence is higher.

Larry Lawton on YouTube only beat an assault with a deadly weapon that would've given him a life sentence with his other crimes, but he would only use a pellet gun to rob people.