restingOface@quokk.au to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 day agoLefty taxquokk.auimagemessage-square97fedilinkarrow-up1753arrow-down18
arrow-up1745arrow-down1imageLefty taxquokk.aurestingOface@quokk.au to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldEnglish · 1 day agomessage-square97fedilink
minus-squareBurray_Mookchin@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up17·edit-21 day agoIf women’s boxers worked like the pricing in the photo it’d be 5 women’s for $20 and 1 men’s for $4
minus-squaredaannii@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·16 hours agoI’m not sure I understand that logic. Since boxers are more commonly worn by men. That would be more analogous to right hand.
minus-squarepapalonian@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up3·15 hours ago I’m not sure I understand that logic. That’s the “logic” in the post. They’re both the same price. You said that’s “how women’s boxers are” and proceeded to explain that they’re a different price than men’s, which is not what the post is describing.
minus-squaredaannii@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·15 hours agoYeah I totally misread and thought left 20 cents for 1 And right. 20 cents for 5. Can I blame this on my cat waking me up like 5x last night or do I have to take full responsibility for not reading properly?
If women’s boxers worked like the pricing in the photo it’d be 5 women’s for $20 and 1 men’s for $4
I’m not sure I understand that logic.
Since boxers are more commonly worn by men. That would be more analogous to right hand.
That’s the “logic” in the post. They’re both the same price.
You said that’s “how women’s boxers are” and proceeded to explain that they’re a different price than men’s, which is not what the post is describing.
Yeah I totally misread and thought left 20 cents for 1 And right. 20 cents for 5.
Can I blame this on my cat waking me up like 5x last night or do I have to take full responsibility for not reading properly?