I think you missed Scott’s point.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
-
-
The only real debate is if we should start rolling back The Bill of Rights.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
“Slightly more dictator-proof” is a bit of video game logic, no? Deterrence is about cost, not “last man standing.” The US military could use overwhelming force against its citizenry, but not without human, $billions, $trillions (economic), political, & geopolitical costs.
-
Candidly, the insurrectionist purpose, like your (correct) observation that no supply side solution can be implemented with only perfect costs, dont make for politically popular discussion when both sides are arguing from a “Not one more!” premise
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I will never agree to become less safe so that others can be more safe
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Or as South Park put it. (Stop boycotting with human canon balls)pic.twitter.com/nYs4Gnt5iS
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Excellent as usual! Happy Easter
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Honest arguments are weaker than polarized arguments. The honest position usually resolves toward the polarized position. Two polarized positions, if agreement is reached, is usually somewhere near the middle.
-
All Scott’s good persuasion stuff has taught us our bias’s prevent any sort of “honest” discussion.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.