You were incorrect about the thing which was the thesis of your comment! Not just incorrect but reality was in the exact opposite state as your comment portrayed it!
When a person manages to be wrong so efficiently, why on Earth should they feel entitled to partial credit for supporting arguments to a factually incorrect main idea?
> You were incorrect about the thing which was the thesis of your comment!
Then you misunderstood the thesis of my comment. Who provided the transport was the least part of it.
The main idea is that the picture is pretty damn f'd up when teenage civillians are going armed to protect private property at/from a protest.
That his mother didn't drive him makes it slightly less messed up, but the overall picture of US society it paints is pretty much the same giant WTF as it was before.
But the f'd up part is the property-destroying riots, not the citizens trying to protect the community. Take away the 2nd, there'd be more damage. Take away the 1st, everything would be fine.
> But the f'd up part is the property-destroying riots, not the citizens trying to protect the community.
I disagree. It's all a huge mess. Armed citizens setting themselves up as effective vigilante defence forces is terrible both for the circumstances that lead there, and the action itself. It really looks like a broken society, and is something I'd expect in far less developed countries.
> Take away the 2nd, there'd be more damage
Maybe, but maybe there would be more people alive.
When a person manages to be wrong so efficiently, why on Earth should they feel entitled to partial credit for supporting arguments to a factually incorrect main idea?