He’s only offering a reason, not necessarily that he supports the reason. Are you guys so fragile in your beliefs that you can’t even handle a simple suggestion of a benefit to an opposing view?
A suggestion of a benefit to open-carrying does not equal endorsement, nor does it mean opposing the view that open-carrying can be dangerous. Try to be more open-minded.
Are you guys so fragile in your beliefs that you can’t even handle a simple suggestion of a benefit to an opposing view?
What was the benefit again? Normalizing doing it is not a benefit on its own.
“Can someone explain the benefit of wearing your underwear on the outside of your pants?”
“To normalize wearing your underwear on the outside of your pants”
So it’s just a fashion statement then?
When someone asks “seriously, what is the argument for doing this, what is the benefit?” A response that exists solely of “to get other people to do it too” does not answer the question as to why that is desirable.
If we move the theoretical out of fashion and into safety, such as someone complaining about people insisting on lying face down in the middle of the street, a response of “they do this to normalize people lying face down in the middle of the street” should not be received well. All it’s doing is advocating for making people less safe with zero justification as to why.
You mean the view “let’s normalize making life more dangerous for no reason?”
He’s only offering a reason, not necessarily that he supports the reason. Are you guys so fragile in your beliefs that you can’t even handle a simple suggestion of a benefit to an opposing view?
A suggestion of a benefit to open-carrying does not equal endorsement, nor does it mean opposing the view that open-carrying can be dangerous. Try to be more open-minded.
What was the benefit again? Normalizing doing it is not a benefit on its own.
“Can someone explain the benefit of wearing your underwear on the outside of your pants?”
“To normalize wearing your underwear on the outside of your pants”
So it’s just a fashion statement then?
When someone asks “seriously, what is the argument for doing this, what is the benefit?” A response that exists solely of “to get other people to do it too” does not answer the question as to why that is desirable.
If we move the theoretical out of fashion and into safety, such as someone complaining about people insisting on lying face down in the middle of the street, a response of “they do this to normalize people lying face down in the middle of the street” should not be received well. All it’s doing is advocating for making people less safe with zero justification as to why.