Yes, my language is biased. I am fully cognizant of my biases here. I am also aware of your biases, as I hope you are as well. Let neither of us suffer any pretense of neutrality.
What I don’t think that either of us has is malicious intent: I think we are both concerned about protecting ourselves, eachother, and society in general from harm.
Where our respective biases come in is our understanding of harm: the sources and severities.
I think you would say it is more important to prevent harm from occurring in the first place.
I would say that prevention is not (entirely) feasible, and that the individual should be empowered to meet harm with overwhelming force.
Your phrasing is extremely biased. The CDC is prevented from engaging in a lot of research into gun crime period regardless of the potential results.
No politician wants actual evidence in that debate because it is far too profitable for them to leave questions unanswered.
Pot calling the kettle black?
Yes, my language is biased. I am fully cognizant of my biases here. I am also aware of your biases, as I hope you are as well. Let neither of us suffer any pretense of neutrality.
What I don’t think that either of us has is malicious intent: I think we are both concerned about protecting ourselves, eachother, and society in general from harm.
Where our respective biases come in is our understanding of harm: the sources and severities.
I think you would say it is more important to prevent harm from occurring in the first place.
I would say that prevention is not (entirely) feasible, and that the individual should be empowered to meet harm with overwhelming force.