I did nothing of the sort. I addressed the meat and potatoes of your comment but:
I either ignored what you said or cherry picked parts out of context … which was it? It can’t be both.
If you think I ignored your initial statement:
It wasn’t because I was aiming to misrepresent anything you said or present your comments “out of context” (which I disagree I did - maybe you can elaborate how I did so instead of assuming I’m approaching this in any combative manner … I’m not) I just didn’t see the need address it. You opened it up with your opinion that “some restrictions are needed” without any kind of elaboration as if I’m supposed to accept this as a given and move on.
You also go on to assume what my stance is without clearly stating your own stance with this statement:
Ok cool. Tell me at what point you think and I’ll tell whether or not I agree and why…I’m not sure what you expected me to do with this??
And in my subsequent reply to the rest of your post, I’m simply pointing out some observations and perspectives of my own … sorry you can’t take someone critique of your hypothetical rare occurrence thought exercise … I’m really at a loss where you were offended … you don’t really offer any explanation there … you just went straight to defcon go fuck yourself haha
If I gave you the impression I was being combative I wasn’t … simply offering my opinion and perspective - which is generally what happens in a discussion.
I’d wager you’re not used to people having different opinions than you or offering up different perspectives?? That’s all I can gather as to why you’re ready to blow up the conversation … I didn’t approach in any bad faith way, not intentionally anyway…