Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    + friends - friends
    314,234 link karma
    14,771 comment karma
    send message redditor for

    [–] Singapore when criticised by Western countries for imposing heavy punishments on drug dealers chiefflerpynerps 5 points ago in singapore

    You’ve broken down your reading of the original comment (which is not mine, in case you or I are still confused after your helpful explanation) but your initial response still doesn’t make sense. Also, that’s an awful lot of sarcasm to be whining about logical fallacies.

    If you want to take a crack at explaining the initial reply go for it, but I’m not confident about round three so no stress.

    As I initially asked, do you care to explain your line on marijuana being morally and ethically bad?

    [–] Best seat in the horse chiefflerpynerps 1 points ago in aww

    From lilyandyodasfunnyfarm Instagram

    [–] Lake Tahoe chiefflerpynerps 222 points ago in submechanophobia

    It’s like the train tracks in spirited away

    [–] The most lionesque Cat ever. Or the most cat-like Lion ever. chiefflerpynerps 1 points ago in aww

    Yup. Weird you got downvoted, it’s cool to know there’s a specific word exactly to describe that look

    [–] That's right. Walk Away. Contemplate how lucky you are. chiefflerpynerps 184 points ago in gif

    This is not his fault. The rack is improperly seated or not bolted down.

    The pegs he attached the bands to are there for exactly what he’s doing.

    Not sure if the tone of the post is calling him stupid, but some of the comments are already screeching “roids” and “idiot” so want to get this out there. Not his fault.

    [–] That's right. Walk Away. Contemplate how lucky you are. chiefflerpynerps 47 points ago in gif


    The pegs he attached the bands to are there for that and very similar reasons

    [–] I guess I'm a teddy now chiefflerpynerps 2 points ago in funny

    If you have experience or something on hand that indicates the bonding is common I’d be interested to learn more, but my understanding of these relationships has been that it is relatively rare.

    I’m a layman at best, but everything I’ve seen regarding this suggests that the special bonds we hear about in the news, like the lion whisperer or the man with the gigantic grizzly as a companion, are in the news precisely because those situations are uncommon.

    Certainly, sanctuary handlers develop close relationships with their charges, but in the interviews I’ve seen those people have said they need to behave in very specific ways to ensure the animal never perceives them as a threat or meal.

    Possible yes, but I disagree that it is common.

    [–] I guess I'm a teddy now chiefflerpynerps 5 points ago * (lasted edited a month ago) in funny

    That’s not true. Non-domesticated animals raised from infancy can still be violent.

    There are cases where the animal never hurts its handler but it’s not a rule. Non-domesticated animals can be unpredictable and dangerous even after years of training/taming

    [–] I guess I'm a teddy now chiefflerpynerps 0 points ago in funny

    Same, comment is likely exactly correct.

    [–] Free falling with a snowboard chiefflerpynerps 11 points ago in holdmyredbull

    I know this is a tired phrase, but that is even harder than the crazy hard that it looks.

    That guy is super good at falling at high speed

    [–] Can we talk about the plague of smokers stinking up sheltered walkways on rainy days? chiefflerpynerps 6 points ago in singapore

    Compromise implies both parties take measures.

    I believe non-smokers have absolutely no responsibility to accommodate smokers’ habit in their day-to-day behaviour.

    If you mean city planners “compromising” by building more enclosed smoking areas then sure that would be great to a certain extent.

    My whole point is that if the smoking room isn’t there and people still choose to smoke, knowing it will hurt others, that’s insanely selfish and should be stopped.

    I’m glad your Sister is considerate. Many people are and I’m not talking about them.

    [–] Can we talk about the plague of smokers stinking up sheltered walkways on rainy days? chiefflerpynerps 7 points ago in singapore

    Choose a place away from people. If that’s inconvenient, well, that’s part the price of their habit.

    If that means being strategic about where they smoke so they don’t hurt others then so be it. That’s a very low minimum standard for a habit that literally harms people

    [–] Can we talk about the plague of smokers stinking up sheltered walkways on rainy days? chiefflerpynerps 8 points ago in singapore

    I’m not saying all smokers are consciously thinking that, but when the options are A) suffer your craving because people are around, or B) smoke anyway, thereby exposing others to 2nd hand smoke, then yea a decision is being made there.

    People tend to scoff when I say this but I don’t believe compromise should even be considered.

    You wouldn’t let me go around kicking people in the shins simply because I’m addicted to it, by my own doing no less.

    There is no compromise in which I think smokers damaging my lungs is ok.

    If I choose to smoke, away from people, on my terms, then that’s my choice and I’m prepared to suffer the consequences. No one gets to force that choice on anyone else and whine when the people who are hurt speak up.

    [–] French police in cold blood. Very cold blood. chiefflerpynerps 3 points ago in Wellthatsucks

    That’s a false dichotomy.

    You can be against police gang-beating people while also against the actions of rioters in general, It’s not necessarily one or the other.

    Also, In this case an appeal to the majority would require someone to be supporting the rioters in the video only because a majority of commenters were already supporting the rioters

    [–] Can we talk about the plague of smokers stinking up sheltered walkways on rainy days? chiefflerpynerps 100 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago) in singapore

    “What are we supposed to do then, not smoke!??”

    Had this same issue in a cold environment, during winter, when the smoking area was a little farther away from building entrances than smokers liked. They would crowd around doors to smoke, thereby forcing even non-smokers to walk through clouds of fumes to enter buildings.

    When the 2nd-hand damage was brought up the smokers, outraged, demanded how they could be expected to take others’ health into consideration when they themselves would suffer if they didn’t get their fix. This sounds hyperbolic but is essentially what the argument broke down to.

    In some smokers minds, apparently, the discomfort of their (self-inflicted) cravings is equal to the damage they force on other people via smoke inhalation.

    I have nothing against smoking in and of itself, or any other indulgence one chooses to partake of, but any habit with such an externality should be done where it doesn’t effect anyone else. Any argument to the contrary that boils down to “the amount of harm my actions do to you doesn’t warrant complaint” is so selfish as to be insane, yet it’s normalised in our society.