Posts by Dennis Bailey2

Banned. The user said:Now you're just contradicting yourself. Based on everything you've said up until this point, you don't have any right to throw a tantrum. You should be bowing your head and taking your punishment like a professional. But since that isn't happening? Well, that’s just life.

No, I didn't. Go back and read my posts again—I never said that. I told you plainly that you should have done two things: pay the fine and sue the boss for nepotism. The fact that you ran the second things got heated instead of appealing to a higher authority, taking it to a civil rights court, or even bringing it up in Strasbourg... well, that's on you. 🤷

Banned. The user said:I’m suggesting exactly what you would do. It comes down to this: why should you face consequences while she walks away scot-free for doing the exact same thing? Or even if it isn't identical, the principle remains. Either both parties are held accountable, or neither is. Anything else just creates an excuse for bias and unnecessary finger-pointing.

It’s the same story with me and the police. Why should I be the one footing the bill while he walks away scot-free? Why on earth would I just take that lying down? Of course I fought back. I’d do it again in a heartbeat. I have every right to stand my ground—especially since I’m acknowledging my own mistake and I'm fully prepared to pay my part of the fine. It's about fairness.

So, you're implying my grievance is rooted in self-interest—that I’m only making noise because I got hit with a penalty while she walked away clean. You're suggesting my issue isn't with the lack of consistency in the rules, but rather that I'm just bitter about being the one held accountable.

Are you seriously unable to see the distinction?

bannned said:Of course not.

Let’s look at a hypothetical. You and your sister go out. You both mess up. You get home, and your mom punishes you, but she gives her a pass.

Are you just going to take that lying down? Does it not bother you that she isn't being held accountable? You messed up too, so you take your punishment... and you aren't even going to complain that she got off easy? You won't even bring it up, let alone act on it?

No, I’m going to lose my mind and demand she gets punished too. If I let my emotions take over and start acting like some vigilante, I might even end up slapping her myself. 🤷

What you all are suggesting is that neither of us should face any consequences just because some other kids out there committed even bigger screw-ups. 🤷

Angela Reyes3 said:I’ll be honest, I can't stand injustice—not when it's directed at me, and certainly not when it's happening to someone else. But if I’m the one who messed up? Well, the idea of trying to justify my own mistakes by pointing out how someone else got away with something even worse never even crosses my mind. Take a ban, for instance. No matter how you spin it, or how "unfair" it feels that you were the one caught while the guy speeding way past you wasn't, you still broke the rules and you have to face the consequences. You can't just start comparing yourself to everyone else to dodge accountability. Sure, there are countless crimes out there where people evade justice because they simply weren't caught or managed to slip through the cracks, but what does that mean? Does it give us all a green light to just dive headfirst into a life of crime?

Then there's the other thing... It’s always possible for things to be worse. No matter how bad any illness gets, there’s always something more severe out there, right? And just because someone else has it harder doesn't mean my own struggles aren't significant. Does someone else's hardship somehow strip me of my right to suffer through my own health issues? I mean, really, think about it.
The same logic applies to everything else—jobs, salaries, cars, houses, clothes, you name it. It doesn't matter. It is ALWAYS possible for things to be worse. Acknowledging that doesn't diminish my own struggles at all. In fact, if I follow that line of thinking and look toward those who are doing better off than I am... then my own situation starts looking even more dire!

And thirdly, just because a situation could be more dire or a crime could be more heinous, it doesn't negate the existence of the current wrongdoing, nor does it mean there shouldn't be accountability for it. That recent news story about the girl and the dogs really shook me to my core; I truly couldn't wrap my head around how a single child could harbor such malice and subject innocent little puppies to that kind of suffering. Yes, I feel just as much heartbreak for every innocent creature that is beaten, killed, or abused, and I won't try to compare those tragedies or deny them, but that doesn't change the fact that what that little girl did was absolutely brutal.

It honestly feels like such a logical fallacy to constantly go searching for a greater injustice; it's probably the easiest thing in the world to do. At that point, it isn't even about the old cliché of the grass being greener on the other side—it's more like claiming the neighbor's grass is even more dead than mine just to make my yard look better.

I'm really trying my best to view most problems and situations as individual experiences rather than constantly measuring them against what others are going through, because if you start down that path, there is simply no end to it...

I completely agree; that's exactly how I see it.

Michelle Alvarez8, your method of "ranking the scale of injustice" is a bit shaky. We can easily agree that killing a person is worse than killing an animal, sure. But is executing a serial killer after they've been sentenced to death a greater sin than torturing and starving an innocent, loyal dog? 🤷

Furthermore, this tactic of "distracting with a larger injustice" can spiral out of control. For instance, if I were to wipe out your entire family, I could try to "shift the focus" to what the Russians did in the Caucasus or what Americans did in Vietnam. 🤷 I think we can both agree that murdering ten Homo sapiens is a smaller crime than murdering tens of thousands. Does that mean it’s perfectly fine for a killer of ten to go unpunished just because the guy who killed 10,000 actually faced justice?

That kind of logic just doesn't sit right with me.

bannned said:My take? Laws have to apply to everyone across the board. If they don't, then I’m just a fool for playing by the rules while everyone else cheats my way through life.....

I actually went down to the precinct once to file a complaint against an officer for blatant favoritism....honestly, I threw in every other grievance I could think of at the time....only to be told there wasn't enough evidence and that I was basically asking for trouble if I didn't shut up and drop it......

We are talking about a systemic issue here. Just because you paid a fine doesn't mean justice was served. 🤷 Look, if we argue that a legal system is only "perfect" when nobody breaks the law, then we're living in a fantasy where anything goes. 🤷 It's a ridiculous logic. It would be like me bombing your house and walking free just because Bush leveled half of Iraq. 🤷

Michelle Alvarez8 said:I don't know why, but I totally felt that personally. 😁

For me, it isn't about trying to justify one injustice a by pointing to another—it's more about trying to shine a light on much bigger issues and systemic injustices. My goal isn't to downplay injustice a at all; I just want to get people thinking about injustice b, which is honestly way worse.

Take this latest headline—puppies being dumped in a river. It's absolutely horrific on its own, sure, but it still doesn't compare to things like waterboarding and that kind of stuff. The logic behind what you said basically boils down to: "as long as we're treating humans like garbage, we don't need to feel bad about treating animals like garbage too." Personally? I think that as a civilization, we have some serious work to do regarding how we treat one another. Everything else flows from that—it's pretty obvious once you see it, right?

So, what? Until we achieve perfect human relations, we can just ignore everything else and do whatever the hell we want? Including poisoning our water supply with dead dogs—which, let's be honest, circles right back to how we treat one another?

bannned said:Exactly. Where does anyone get the right to lock me up over one single killing, while someone else gets off scot-free after a million crimes... and I’m just supposed to sit here and take it?

That kind of pressure would turn anyone into a terrorist!

I'll say it again: I shouldn't have to justify myself if we're all being punished for our sins... but if they aren't, then there's no reason why I should be.

I see it clearly. 🤷 In your case, this isn't about universal justice; it's about following the rules. You should be penalized for speeding, regardless of what else is happening in the universe. We can't expect perfection from the legal system; if we followed your logic, nobody would ever be allowed to be punished for anything. 🤷 I got pulled over $167 for doing 60 in a 30 zone, except the cop didn't even wave me down because he was too busy dealing with some other guy who happened to be his buddy. He was simply too overwhelmed with that situation to catch me. 🤷 Just because that guy "bolted" doesn't mean it's okay to drive 60 in a 30 zone. 🤷

Instead of suing the government because they issued a valid ticket, you should have sued the officer for nepotism. 🤷

Kevin Bailey2 said:Look, sorry. But we're getting into some heavy moral territory here.
We don't have any legal right to take matters into our own hands, not even against someone like that.

But yeah. Honestly, sometimes I catch myself having these dark thoughts about what I'd do to a predator if they ever laid a finger on my kid. It's not just about stopping them; it's about the kind of retribution I'd want to inflict—and maybe broadcast online as a warning to anyone else thinking about doing the same.

But listen... in that split second, parental rage takes over. That raw, gut-wrenching fury at seeing your child violated...
At that moment, any sense of rational behavior goes straight out the window.

It’s like if someone tried to snatch a child from my arms and throw them into traffic or a fire—no one could blame me if I tore that person's throat out in the heat of the moment.

Those are instinctive reactions, and honestly, I think they're justified. To me, they are. You touched a nerve regarding children, and as a parent, my child is everything. I’d do anything—absolutely anything—to stop someone from brutally hurting them. I'll admit, I would absolutely wreck that person, but that's beside the point.

👍 Now, imagine the scenario where nothing can actually be proven because the person is innocent. What happens when you carry out that "brutal justice" on the wrong person, while the actual criminal just sits there smirking? 🤷 I assume we "installed" the whole due process system for a reason... 🤷

Kevin Bailey2 said:You were speeding.
He was speeding.
Both of you broke the law.
Conclusion: both of you should pay the fine.
And along with you two, that cop needs to be slapped with a fine too for failing to do his job properly.
Actually, let's just get him fired so he can wave at people on the street all he wants.

Absolutely. 🤷

What's the deal? Americans haven't been held accountable for countless mass killings, instigating wars, the atomic bombs—excuse me, bombs, etc., etc. So why should I end up behind bars if I kill some guy?! Just one? 🤷

Lisa Lopez6 said:Were you actually talking about my new thread when you said that? 😁

It isn't about the main thread itself, but rather certain specific posts within it. You see it more clearly in that other discussion regarding people who just don't like dogs. That topic is broad; it isn't a targeted attack on any one individual.

Lately, I’ve been reading a lot of posts from various users—mostly centered around animal cruelty, though the sentiment bleeds into Politics and Law discussions too—and it’s prompted me to put this thought together...

Take these common arguments, for instance (paraphrased, not direct quotes):
- Why is everyone losing their minds over one cat when people are out there murdering and maiming each other without a second thought?
- It’s wrong to hate a dog, sure, but hating people is perfectly fine?
- You’re complaining about your paycheck, but have you seen how much people struggle in Chicago?
- You claim things are bad here, but look at how much better life is in Texas.
- Marijuana is illegal, yet alcohol—which is clearly more destructive—is totally legal!

We see this same logic popping up in everyday life all the time:
- Why am I getting a ticket when that guy was flying down the highway twice the speed limit!?
- I got a citation for parking here, but why didn't they pull over the guy right next to me?!

And so on.

What’s your take? Where does this impulse come from—this need to use one injustice to justify another, effectively allowing both wrongs to exist?

briskpuma23 said:People become moderators for the exact same reason they join Reddit—to actually contribute something.

Every single question the OP asked could have been directed at any regular user. I mean, why on earth would you give away your thoughts, ideas, conclusions, and questions to everyone else for free? Why spend hours deep in discussion? What drives someone to spend over an hour just drafting an opening post? And you’re doing all this pro bono. So, what’s the actual payoff?

At the end of the day, a moderator is just a regular user with a few extra permissions.

And just because someone makes money off a certain situation—well, people make money off the fact that we're breathing, too—it doesn't mean it's smart to quit living.

👍👍👍👍👍

Look, I'm not a moderator here, but I volunteer my time quite often. Very frequently, that volunteer work ends up serving a purpose that brings profit to someone else—not me.

But honestly? That sense of being useful and contributing to some famous "greater good" is more than enough motivation for me to step up as a volunteer.

Oh yeah, you also conveniently forgot to mention HOW exactly one is supposed to go about having these kids.

That was a pretty low blow on your part. 😵

So, here’s the plan: first, you have one—ideally a girl. Then, two years later, you have another. After that, you wait about eight or ten years before having twins. Since managing them all alone is clearly impossible, you just put the first child to work. From then on, you have one more every single year. Pretty soon, those first two will have developed such a seamless workflow that they can basically raise your entire brood for you! 👍

wirednomad42 said:which, fast forward a few years to puberty, and she’ll be hating my guts—everyone will be better than me 😍 (not that I care, honestly, just part of growing up 😍 )

I don't have one 😢

I have.

😕
Her dad has his own relationship with her that tangles with mine, but it doesn't hit me hard enough to worry about it the way I worry about my own connections.

btw, love the layout of this post 😍

This hit home... Look, I don't claim to be an expert on kids—I don't understand them at all—but I do understand the concept of upbringing to a point. Someone raised me, after all. I've learned that the person being raised is always the cumulative result of everything they've been exposed to. It isn't just Mom's rules or Dad's discipline or Grandpa's influence; it’s a cocktail of parents, extended family, friends and their parents, the neighborhood, the local park... I don't have children, but I do have dogs (and cats), and the biggest failures in training always happened when we didn't sit down as a group and agree on both a) what we were doing and b) how we were going to do it. So, my take? With kids, it’s absolutely vital that the direction and the methodology stay consistent among everyone involved in the raising—at least between the parents and the grandparents if they're part of the equation.

I don't laugh often, and I certainly never force it... why would anyone bother?

Here’s my take: when a society’s moral compass starts spinning out of control, you get this specific mindset where people decide they won't lift a finger. Instead, they just dump everything into index funds and real estate, praying that passive income will magically sustain them.

When that mentality becomes the norm rather than the exception, you end up with an absurd ratio of idle speculators compared to the actual workers required to maintain the illusion that money is somehow generating its own value.

In the long run, that imbalance is a direct flight path toward runaway inflation and a total economic meltdown.

fadedskipper21 said:Here we go—another topic for the pile.
What truly gets under my skin is how much people today just default to stereotypes. The typical American script is pretty rigid: get married by 25, take out those massive mortgages, find a husband (mandatory), and have a few kids—ideally as many as possible.

If you don't fit that mold, you usually end up being the target of judgment or scorn; most people look at you as if you’re somehow "lesser" or fundamentally broken.

I’m 31 now, so according to this social blueprint, I should have been settled down ages ago. I recently ran into an old classmate who already has three kids, and he spent a full two hours lecturing me on why I’m not married and don't have children yet—asking things like, "So what's the issue?" or "How haven't you found anyone?" or even implying that nobody wants me.

The reality of my life isn't that something is missing—everyone who actually knows me can attest that everything is fine. It's just that I hate being tied down; I value my independence, I dislike feeling suffocated, and frankly, I enjoy living on my own. That's just who I am. And because of that, I'm treated like a total anomaly. I could have easily married my long-term boyfriend if I had wanted to, but I didn't, because he had no drive to work or build a life, so I realized he wasn't the one for me. I could have also just proven I was "wanted" by checking off all the boxes society forces on us—from family to the media—but I refused to force a marriage just to satisfy everyone else instead of myself. Now, I'm viewed as this "oddity" that no one will touch at 31, when the truth is I simply chose not to marry someone who wasn't a perfect match for me. I chose to be happy. Instead, I was expected to just marry anyone, produce a brood, and call it a day just to satisfy some arbitrary sense of justice. 🙂 🙂

Why are there so many Americans clinging to these stereotypes, while so few women seem to be original or do things simply because they decided to, rather than because their environment demanded it? Why aren't there more people breaking away from the norm—people who are genuinely put-together, living their lives without needing to parade a "perfect" domestic image for show?
It would be lovely if it were all sincere, but most of those people just open a Meta profile to rub it in everyone else's faces—showing off how they "made it," how perfect they are, and how flawlessly they've adhered to the status quo. Who knows if they even love their poor spouses? You can say that again.
Thanks.

And you actually sat there listening to him because of 😕

I think I found the smartest take on this whole subject from Terry Pratchett:
"When people go off to look for themselves, they tend to forget who's doing the looking..." 👍

Taylor Morales31 said:It’ll be improved once it doesn't even exist anymore—that’s when it’ll actually be at its peak. 😂

Word...

Lawrence Lopez12 said:Yeah, we’re really diving into some heavy, messy territory here.

Look, everyone owns their own destiny. At the end of the day, she walked away from that marriage.
But what about a woman being hit by her husband? Honestly, my first instinct is usually to just lose my mind a little bit 😁, wondering how anyone could let that happen—like, where is the self-respect? But deep down, I just feel for people in those spots. You can't pin the violence on the victims; all you can do is push them to take that step forward and get away from the predator. It’s the same logic as when people claim women who dress provocatively are responsible for being raped. That’s nonsense. If someone truly had a healthy relationship with themselves, they wouldn't put themselves in that position to begin with.

I have no clue if she reached out to her siblings for help. It’s an older generation we're talking about, and I get the feeling everything was handled by just sweeping it under the rug so the neighbors wouldn't gossip. Even getting a divorce was treated like some huge scandal! It’s just gross... but I still don't have an answer to the question in the original post. 🤷 Maybe we should just start a whole new thread about whether we’re still living in a patriarchal society. To me, this woman seems like a textbook example of someone forced into thinking through that lens, though I bet we’d have an even harder time agreeing on that topic.

Good grief.
Our society is so deeply patriarchal, uneducated, and pathetic that asking if it’s still an issue feels pointless for at least another 40 years.

Look... I don't think anyone here actually has the right to pass judgment on this.

A woman who stays in an abusive marriage usually has her own reasons, whatever those may be. Some women in that situation feel trapped; they might honestly believe that enduring some physical abuse is safer than ending up in a domestic violence shelter only to be found dead in a ditch a few months later. Others stay "for the kids." Some are convinced they can't survive on their own financially. Others cling to the hope that he’ll eventually change. It goes on and on... who are we to sit here and play judge and jury?

As for the brothers, I agree—everyone is responsible for their own life. If she hasn't explicitly asked for help, there isn't much they can do besides potentially facing a lawsuit if they interfere.