Some Schmo wrote: ↑Sun Aug 29, 2021 3:36 pm
Given all the thoughts on trolling expressed here lately, I guess it's unavoidable to realize that ajax is mostly trolling. He doesn't converse. He doesn't follow up or support his assertions. He just writes nonsense to see what happens.
Time to ignore him. Reading his comments kills brain cells.
I have him on ignore for the same reasons, butbutbut, I’ll take him off ignore if he ever decides to engage in good faith arguments. I told him years ago if he would present better or sophisticated arguments instead of just goldfish-pivot-meme’ing his way through a thread he might move the needle to the right with some posters because a lot of us actually hold some historically conservative notions about social conventions and policy positions.
That said, I find the analogy in the title absurd. It’s akin to:
Seatbelts:
Can get in a car wreck
Can hit a tree
Can die
No seatbelts:
Can get in a car wreck
Can hit a tree
Can die
Can't die from seatbelt asphyxiating you
Therefore why impose seatbelt wearing on the population, because dontcha know you can die from seatbelt asphyxiation? How about:
Bullet proof vests:
Police officers have died from gunshot wounds while wearing bullet-proof vests.
Police officers have survived a gunshot would with no bullet proof vest
Clearly, clearly, they should just not wear them anymore.
Firearms:
Baddies can sometimes get hold of Police Officers firearms
Police have arrested baddies without a gun.
Clearly Police shouldn’t carry firearms.
-_-
Statistics should be a required annual course starting in Middle School (along with Civics).
- Doc