Now I feel terrible for cracking my knuckles. So many poor tiny sailors, never to come home.

Ok. You’re missing the point. It may not limit the productivity of a particular athlete. But that is neither here nor there. It limits the ability of a group to gather talent.

That’s a different thing though. A winning team is is not the product that the league is selling. Entertaining games are. Really, as far as the league is concerned, the Patriots and the Falcons aren’t the competitiveness they care about- whether Monday Night Football pulls more ad dollars than sitcoms is. The league…

And, just in case you were woefully undereducated, let me summarize the basic principles of economics that you’ve ignored.

You asked a dumb question, obviously with a particular slant. Once everyone called you out for how self-evidently stupid it was, you tried to walk it back “oh, it was a thought question”, “I just wanted to know”. Now, in your response, you A: fail to note any possible positives from your plan, B: fail to refute any…

Uh. You do realize that the salary cap is in place SPECIFICALLY to limit the success of teams willing to pay for it, and make sure that poor teams are able to keep up? So a thing entirely designed because paying for talent confers an advantage to an organization, and is trying to mitigate that, is the example you use…

Ah, right, of course, YOUR pay is absolutely fair. It’s that other asshole. Her pay is bullshit. Because... well, I’m sure you have reasons.

Yes. It’s called “economics”.

$10k plus depending on location. They hold their value like crazy.

SHE. LOST. TO. DONALD. FUCKING. TRUMP.

This. I tend to lean libertarian, but Sanders was my first and second choice, because he seemed like the only one who gave a shit about anybody but themselves- and I’ve talked to quite a few that agree with me.

Is it part of soccer official rules that every highlight video has the same Alvin and The Chipmunks music along with it?

I agree with most of your points (although trophy hunting is too complex to be purely “shitty”), but I would like to correct one point- bows are just as capable of humane kills as rifles. Poor hunters/shot placement cause slow and horrible deaths, with both rifles and bows. I’ve seen plenty of hunters with crazy nice…

Funny thing about that though... the pickup wreck happens after Mr. NeighborhoodWatch puts his cones out. It changes... nothing. Almost like the drivers aren’t driving safely for the conditions.

Pfft, you aren’t a real fan if you don’t have the Horsin’ Around them for your ringtone

And those are all absolutely fair points. I feel that every person has their own level of what is or isn’t responsible daily kit. Some people carry a first aid kit with them. Some a gun. I’m not really one to judge those decisions. Obviously if you commit a crime, including negligent harm to another, you should face…

I’m sorry, I’m still just not understanding your point. I’m sure that if you use just a few more personal insults, you can prove yourself correct, and finally end the gun-control debate in America.

Please, continue to explain to me how I’ve proven myself irrational. Use your ad-hominem attacks to prove your moral superiority.

Have I stated whether or not I carry a firearm? Have I stated I agree with someone’s decision to do so? So far, I haven’t stated my views at all- merely noted that you have used insults in lieu of points. And for that I am called a “stupid coward”. Possibly (just possibly), that was my point.

I learned long ago not to assume anything about the intentions of someone on the internet I’ve never met, and take their comments at face value. However, since you’ve proven to be willing to discuss this and consider opposing sides, I will apologize for my passive-aggressive response.