GreyEyedGhost

Having bowel movements as infrequently as a few times a week is still considered healthy. Perhaps not as healthy as daily, but that isn't the point of this discussion. Doing the speed limit in most areas of North America means this trip could be done in about 14 hours, plus fueling time (I've done a similar trip in 10). If she sped just 10% over the speed limit, which is generally considered little enough to not attract the attention of the police in my area, she could have done it in less than 13. Not only is it conceivable she could have done this without having to poop, if she managed her fluid intake, she quite possibly could have done this without having to pee.

None of this has any bearing on whether she did poop or pee, but she was an astronaut, and astronauts are known for their ability to plan ahead. And I suspect any denial issues she had (what else is going to make you think continuing a relationship with a kidnapping is going to have a happy ending?) didn't revolve around her waste elimination processes. So she could very well have worn undergarments to deal with those problems as a precautionary measure and just not used them.

Sometimes bitter people seem to live forever, but the bitterness etched on their faces always makes them look older.

I'm not sure I get what you're saying? You're a guy and can't stop yourself from staring at other guys' chests?

It's absolutely cultural, like so many sexual taboos, but it is a pretty common cultural norm.

Guys in general like breasts and, until going topless is normalized, those who do will get looks. It's awkward, I'm sure. Perhaps we need a topless pride parade so no one is singled out and we can jumpstart the change in social norms.

My favorite Disney princess.

Back to the false dichotomy. You can start over at the top again without me.

Did WWII end before Hitler died? He seemed to think so given the gaping hole he put in his own head. I honestly think if Trump were to die tomorrow, very little would change. I think if he was assassinated you would see a response that would make the one to 9/11 look tame. If he'd been put in jail after Jan 6, maybe the direction of things would have changed, but I expect things will get a lot worse before they get better. As a non-American, my fervent hope is they eat themselves like a cancer and don't spread to the rest of the world. In the meantime, I'll watch my own backyard and do what little I can to stem the tide where I live.

Yes, but not nearly the biggest problem around, nor do I think his death is going to stem the tide. So, did the death of this dangerous person improve the world any more than killing a mosquito does? Or was it a tiny bump on the road to American fascism?

Being soft and not dehumanizing are two different things. The fact you can't tell the difference doesn't change that. I'm willing to do hard things to dangerous people. I don't need to trick myself that they aren't people in order to do that.

Dehumanizing people is a trait of fascism. It makes it easy to commit all kinds of atrocities because they aren't really people. Why would you want that for yourself or others?

Dehumanization is for fascists.

Edited due to the ambiguity of the English language. Dehumanization is what fascists do. If you want to be more like fascists, don't let me hold you back. If you think you can only fight evil if it isn't human, then acknowledge your weakness and do something about it.