It looks like the chart is showing the ratio of self-harm to harm to others, and the bars’ length corresponds to how many people they surveyed who use the drug.

Nah. I’m honestly not sure I’m not arguing with a bot at this point, so I’m out.

That’s totally what I said! Good job.

Ok. Yes, I understand that. The thing is, there’s this thing called the Geneva Conventions that we’ve sworn to uphold. That means that we’re supposed to call out violations of the conventions when we see them. That *may* take the form of bombing empty airbases.

Okay. I guess gassing brown people is okay then. Then again, what do I know, I’m just an ISIS supporter.

*My* bluster? Okay. I mean, why should I offer a substantive response to ad hominem attacks? Are you interested in having an actual conversation? It doesn’t seem like it.

Right. I was referring specifically to the bombing of the air base in retaliation for the gassing. However, yes, this is important to keep in mind. I’m not advocating for major military intervention - I was trying to point out that you can be against participating in a full scale war in the region while also believing…

lol. you’re ridiculous with those rhetorical fallacies

Also, why do you think “we don’t have the ability to impose any repercussions on Assad”?

From what I understand, the strikes on the military base that were in retaliation for the gassing did not kill civilians. That’s not to say that our president in all his “wisdom” won’t fuck up and kill people in the future.

I can play this game. Do you think that assad should be able to gas his people with no international repercussions?

Now Danny, you know you’re not allowed on the computer until you finish your homework