Posts by Joshua Adams41

And there they have it. Back where they belong. Sorry for the interruption.🙂

I made a point about asexuality, specifically regarding people who just can't reach that peak sexual satisfaction when they're with someone else, and for some reason, my post got nuked twice.
What's the deal with that?

Alright, thanks much🙂

Hey, Admin—any chance you could merge these two threads of mine?
I managed to wipe every single one of my songs off my hard drive, but luckily, the ones I had uploaded live are still hanging around somewhere.🙂

If you can, let's make the main title "and a word falls softly..."

Thanks,🙂

Steven Johnson3 said:Quote : Baby blues

If it bothers you that much, why even show up? I just don't get that type of person.

It doesn't matter to them. Why would they be killed off by impotence or a sudden collapse? Though, unlike women, they don't tend to go into much detail about those things.

That’s not even what I was getting at. My critique was aimed more at those tired social stereotypes—you know, the ones judging women based on their dating history, or vice versa.
I'm talking about how society treats one person like a hero for the exact same behavior they treat someone else like a villain for.
It’s such a cliché, but the reality is way more nuanced. It really just comes down to the individual case.

Anonymous said:What do you think?
A guy with a bunch of women is just seen as a player—it’s celebrated.
But a woman with multiple men? She's immediately labeled a slut. Disgusting.
That isn't how nature intended things to be; it's how organized religion shaped society to keep people under control through belief systems.

This is just another tired stereotype to me. I haven't noticed that these so-called "party girls" have any trouble picking a life partner; if anything, they tend to come out on top more often than not.
The catch is that once they marry, they get treated based on their past—usually by his family—and that's where the real friction starts.

And who is creating this myth about the "experienced player" anyway? It's usually nothing more than some woman's word. Honestly, most guys care way more about money and status than whether or not a girl has a long list of exes from the local bars.

We really need to draw a line between the struggles women face because our legal system is broken and the issues caused by outdated cultural norms.
Some employers just hand out pink slips the second they find out a woman is pregnant. Is that a deep-seated tradition issue, or is it a total failure of our legal protections?
Women carry the brunt of the voting power, so why aren't they picking leaders who actually know how to fix a dysfunctional government?
Take Sweden, for example—most of their politicians are women. Does anyone there tell them who they’re allowed to vote for? No.

Then you have people who marry into families where her role is pre-determined to be the "cook," and then they turn around and blame society. Her family, his family, and he himself all support this little setup where she stays in the kitchen—so why is the rest of the world being held responsible for that mess?

You set the bar way too high for someone you just lent money to $300 and honestly, she probably expected even more from you.
I guess she moved on to some bigger philanthropist. It makes me wonder if people like that focus all their energy on one person or if they’re playing the field with multiple targets at once.
Maybe they can only really prep themselves for one person at a time, who knows?
Sadly, I haven't run into anyone like that yet—probably because my bank account isn't exactly overflowing.🙂

silentpilot6 said:Hmm... I don't think that's a good example.
For instance, imagine you go out with two or three friends... one of them gets drunk, does something stupid, and beats someone up... you might have just been "standing there," perhaps even trying to de-escalate the situation, and in the end, you get hit with 5 years.
No... it can't work that way.

Look, you aren't going to get slapped with five years just for standing around being a bystander since you didn't actually participate. But if you throw even one single punch? Well, you aren't looking at a light sentence either. In my opinion, we should be looking at much harsher penalties for group beatdowns.
Extreme situations demand extreme measures.

If two guys are just holding someone down, they might get off with some joke of a punishment, probably probation.
But that’s assuming those two guys weren't essentially facilitating a murder.
If Luka Ritz had been attacked by just one lone individual, maybe Luka wouldn't have even ended up in the hospital.
So why shouldn't the responsibility for his death be spread across everyone in that group? Because they all played a part in making the crime possible in the first place.
Right now, they are only being judged for the specific punches they threw, but if they hadn't been there, Luka would likely still be alive today. This guy alone might not have even dared to attack Luka, or he certainly wouldn't have been able to inflict such devastating injuries without their help.

We need to establish a legal term called a "band" (when more than one person takes part in a crime). Committing a crime as part of a "band" should carry a minimum sentence of 5 years for every single member of that "band," plus their individual criminal responsibility on top of that.
Take the case of Luka Riz, for example.
He was jumped by four people.
Three of them were charged with assault, while one was charged with murder.
Think back to that brawl at Yankee Stadium where a group got into it—they couldn't pin down who actually committed the murder, so there was no murder trial at all.

Now, if crimes committed by a group were prosecuted this way, it wouldn't matter specifically which individual pulled the trigger or landed the fatal blow; what would matter is that the group's collective actions resulted in death. Every member of the group would be held responsible for the murder, and then you tack on their specific personal charges.

From what I've observed, intentional murders are handled that way—like the assassination of Pukanić—but when it comes to manslaughter or crimes without premeditation, like what happened to Luka Ritz, they don't apply it.
I think that’s exactly where the system fails.

And the sheer brutality being used? It's unbelievable.
You have a man lying unconscious on the ground, and they just keep beating him. Anyone with half a brain knows that a single strike to the head of someone in that state can be lethal.
I honestly don't think it used to be like this, regardless of how much people talk up the "good old days."
There used to be some kind of line, a point where enough was enough. Today, that moral brake has simply vanished from people's minds.