I’m impressed at the level of nonchalance with which you deliver this line.
I’m also impressed at how someone could be so pigheaded. Someone who so vehemently argues the merits of his pet amendment could ignore the principles on which the entire constitution was founded - and arguably the most important principle behind the first amendment. That the perceptions of other people are different than your own, that they do matter, and that they should be afforded the same level of respect that you enjoy.
The perceptions of other people absolutely matter. Not just in a rhetorical, philosophical sense either. It’s the perception of other people that forms their reality. If, in their reality, you pose a significant threat, you may be surprised at their reaction to you. If, in their reality, they feel the need to act rashly and it is to your detriment, you truly have no reason to be surprised or even irritated, since you so blithely disregard their perceptions.
You’re an incompetent debater, a unintelligible arguer of incoherent points; you’re unfathomably ignorant of basic human interaction.
By “unusual”, she means “virtually unheard of”. I started laughing the first time I heard about one in the US. “What? They’re going to look at the body? That’s an awful joke!”
