but the article didn’t mention any redeeming values for the device as you did
This means the writer has a bias of negativity towards the device and now you are arguing that’s it’s a good thing it is being banned.
You would vote to ban dihydrogen monoxide if you found it has been consumed by every murderer in existence and also has been found at every school shooting too
How so
This means the writer has a bias of negativity towards the device and now you are arguing that’s it’s a good thing it is being banned.
You would vote to ban dihydrogen monoxide if you found it has been consumed by every murderer in existence and also has been found at every school shooting too
I said “this is a dumbfuck response to a problem they allege to be fixing and hopefully their committee concludes the same”.
Translation = it’s stupid to ban it.
I was giving credit to that other guy for listing some redeeming qualities of the device as the article did not.