>>81474764

>Please, put more effort on your grammar. I would appreciate it if you could also respond to my post with another pic as well.

So long as someone understands what I'm saying idc about grammar spelling etc.

>In the original post, you created

I'm the person you've been responding to for a while now, not OP

I'm only going to go so far in defending OPs argument but it seems disingenuous to think that OP meant revenge is bad because of the insanely small chance that one day everyone will hate eachother. Taking OP literally there is wild. Right now I'm making a correction of your response to OP and where it goes wrong in addressing what she likely meant if you care at all about understanding that.

The purpose of some principles isn't to prevent extremely unlikely scenarios. For example the age of consent is at 18 not because we dont think there are no mature 17 year olds. There are definitely a few out there who can handlena relationship with an adult. It's that the line needs to be drawn somewhere because we've decided the consequences of not drawing it are worse than drawing it somewhat arbitrarily. What do you think of that?

>But just because something has consequences, I don't think that makes it wrong
>But a world full of blind people is better than a bunch of trash that can see.

So that is what you were trying to address, I see.