Comment by shawnz
6 years ago
Those would be the options if there was an attack against him, but there's not any attack against him. Wrongly addressed tickets are hardly even a minor inconvenience. I think that's what the parent is saying.
6 years ago
Those would be the options if there was an attack against him, but there's not any attack against him. Wrongly addressed tickets are hardly even a minor inconvenience. I think that's what the parent is saying.
It's a figure of speech; when used colloquially in this manner, it has nothing to do with any kind of attack.
It just means "argue a point on principle when you know you aren't going to affect change".
It's a figure of speech which means to argue on a point of principle without regard to the cost when you know you aren't going to affect change. It absolutely doesn't make sense in the context where there's no attack. Otherwise how does the dying come into play in the analogy?
> Wrongly addressed tickets are hardly even a minor inconvenience.
Now I wonder what you would consider a minor inconvenience. "Oh yeah that time they suspended my licence that was a minor inconvenience for me."
Wrongly addressed tickets are a real hassle. I'd assume that if you don't contest them in time, you have to pay them. And if you don't pay them, they will suspend your licence. (I don't really know. But I assume that's what would happen.)
You can be arrested for driving on a suspended license, and it can be either a misdemeanor or a felony.