SaltSong

Why do you think that? Because I'm trying to get us to make a sensible argument rather than a simple, incorrect argument?

You know, I might be a little more ok with this, if it actually stopped school shootings.

But I doubt it will.

It's quite easy to understand. But you said "Property damage is not violence against civilians."

Clearly property damage can be violence against civilians.

It is if you're using the definition provided by the person I'm replying to.

Only if you're shorting them to further a political goal.

In other words, you can’t use violence against an empty car dealership in the middle of the night. So it’s not violent.

Enough damage to that dealership costs someone money. That's harm.

Maybe not a lot of harm. But it's harm.

Most of our government seems to be.

This isn't a case of logic, it's a case of observation.

It's also a joke. There are very few Democrat leaders that get involved in gay sex scandles, not because they don't have gay sex, but that their base doesn't care. Most of us just call it "sex" unless we have a specific need to differentiate. Some additional factor is required to make it a scandal.

Republicans, though, officially disapprove of gay sex. So anytime one of them is caught having any, automatic scandal.

It's honestly not too bad an idea, provided they are old enough.

I have no expectation of inheriting anything. Between medical bills and consumer debt, and the fact that my family is poor as shit anyway, there will be nothing to inherit. They might as well run that credit card debt up, because it dies with them.

I might feel differently if I had any reason whatever to feel bad about cheating credit card companies out of their money, but banks and financiers as a whole address not on my list of favorite people.

This is why gatekeeping is actually important. But you've got to be sure you're keeping out the people who want to change the group, rather than people who want to join it.