I mean, you saw "regulations are written in blood because people died and resulted in them getting passed" and thought a proper response was "let's not have any

I mean, you saw "regulations are written in blood because people died and resulted in them getting passed" and thought a proper response was "let's not have any regulations at all because they're hard to get rid of and slow business down" so you're at least taking the libertarian position, regardless of whether you identify as a libertarian. And no, nobody else has ever interpreted "regulations are written in blood" in that fashion, nor is that a valid interpretation of that saying. That is in fact the opposite of what the saying means. There are wrong answers to questions, I understand that it may be uncomfortable to be told that but it doesn't change the fact that nobody else ever interpreted that saying that way, nor does it really make any sense to interpret that way. Your jumping into semantic arguments about well I said it therefore it's a viewpoint is especially unproductive to the overall discussion. Like sure, but (a) that's not relevant, and (b) not all viewpoints are good, it's not a valid viewpoint just because it's a viewpoint. It's also where you start seriously leaning off into sealioning/tone argument instead of, you know, discussing why regulations are written in blood. Hope this helps, I'm trying to keep this as even-keeled and matter-of-fact as possible - which certainly poses a challenge once you've poisoned the well by throwing around accusations of toxicity. That's a burden on me, everything I argue now has to be sugarcoated lest it further reinforce you as being the victim, which is of course the whole reason you dove into tone arguments. That is part of the problem with "no offending anybody" type rules - it becomes very easy to cry "toxic" and play the victim and that lowers the quality of discourse, because nobody's opinion can ever be wrong lest they get offended.