As already mentioned, why are you not suggesting Alcohol Victims Insurance to pay for damages from people who are drinking alcohol.Do you really not understand why? I'm going to try to throw you a bone here. Remember my first post in this thread where I said I was embarrassed for you? The reason why I was embarrassed for you is that your logic doesn't make any sense. You argument takes the form:If one suggests that X is a solution for Y, then one must also suggest X as a solution for Z. But it doesn't follow. Just because I was able to teach my dog to fetch, it doesn't follow I can my hamster to fetch by using the same method. There's no reason for that to be true. So if someone suggests say, requiring insurance for firearms as a partial solution for gun violence it goes not follow that the same solution will work for alcohol abuse. You're not catching anyone in a trap by raising the question. You're simply trying to conjoin two unrelated things. It makes no sense. There is no logic at all to your arguments.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.