Originally posted by Adam_PoE
He cannot win an argument on its merits, so his goal is to simply force a draw, so that no one else can either. He does that by obstructing, obfuscating, and derailing conversations, and forcing threads to be closed. No one can beat him in argument if the thread is closed and no one can discuss it anymore!
yup. the time waster was rewarded once again. f*cking ridiculous
Anti-weapon laws are philosophically unsound.
Lets look at baseball bats. You can't carry a bat as a weapon, yet you can carry it for sport. This requires a bat being paired with a glove.
So what's the problem? Namely, trust.
Either you trust the public to act ethically, or you don't.
If you don't trust the general public to carry a bat for sport, then you'd assume would lie about why they have that bat and glove, then use the bat to attack someone, making the law pointless.
If you do trust the public to carry around a bat without assaulting anyone in sight, such laws are unnecessary.
Ideally, everyone should carry a bat if they want, and be charged IF they attack someone with it.
Essentially we're assuming people can't be trusted not to escalate confrontation or lash out, yet are obedient to laws.
That's crazy.