"Let's preemptively lock people up so that I won't ever have to risk enduring a moment's inconvenience" is not a reasonable "compromise."
I too am curious as to what would constitute "something"? Reading a book at work right now called "The New Victorians". Published around 2002, it discusses social welfare policy/philosophy in the original gilded age while identifying many of the same markers that began appearing by the late 1980s. Essentially that the notion of "private" charity being more effective than "public" is demonstrably a crock of shit.
Must have been a different uncle painting largely peaceful protests as characterized by looting and broken windows. Well, I *say* peaceful, I mean non-violent. You know.
What do you mean "as characterized"? Did I make up all the arson and looting? Also, in order for this to qualify as collective punishment, did I call for anyone but arsonists and looters to face consequences?
You kinda widened the goalposts to who was guilty and who wasn't. By not having a "wasn't" in there period.
looters and rioters are not protesters. Protesters protest. Usually some political cause. Looters loot. at sporting events. at chaotic events. and sometimes at protests. Rioters riot. at sporting events. at chaotic events. and sometimes at protests. Arsonists start fires. at sporting events. at chaotic events. and sometimes at protests. Looters should absolutely face consequences. Rioters should absolutely face consequences. Arsonists should absolutely face consequences. Protesters are protected by the constitution just like your right to own a gun.
But all was fine and dandy when Kyle Rittenhouse shot into a crowd of protesters and when they tried to stop him, they were wrong. because it's his right?
Yea. That's it. It's not like he outright killed someone. and maimed another. also, both victims were also white. So, your analogy is just your racism showing through.