I love how you keep trying to act like I'm projecting anything on you when you created this whole thing for yourself. You are the cause of this problem, so why are you getting mad at me? I made the comment "I mean, prohibition prevented alcohol consumption, right? ...Wait..." Now, I don't know if you, unlike the thousands of other people who have read this comment and moved on, don't understand sarcasm, don't appreciate it, or are just looking for a fight, but let me confirm: It was sarcasm, and it was at the expense of creating a parallel to OP's picture. Everyone else got that, and made funny jokes, comments, etc.

You chose to "ACTUALLY" me, instead, because you decided that somehow, in some world, sarcastically saying: "Prohibition prevented alcohol consumption, right?" was the same as "Prohibition was a complete/colossal/total failure, prove me wrong." If you can explain logically and reasonably how those two sentences are identical, I would love to have front row seats to watch you jump through those hoops. Go back, re-read what I said, and show me where I said it was a complete/total/colossal failure. Your perceived implications are not evidence of me saying such, because I'm telling you right now: You're not me, you're the reader of what I'm writing, so when I'm telling you as the writer: "my point was that it didn't stop people from consuming alcohol", that is what it means, that is what it has always meant, and that is what it will always mean. You don't get to tell the author/writer what they meant just because you want it to mean that. It's enough with the attempted gas-lighting, because you're not going to make me doubt my own words so you seem credible. I wrote them, I know what they mean.

Furthermore, you can stop going on about how you're not arguing against me on that: I know. You've told me as many times as I've tried to tell you what I said. I'm not arguing you're saying otherwise (although I'm sure you'll tell me that somehow I am). I'm reiterating it so heavily because you are absolutely refusing to listen to anything otherwise-- and I think that's because if you do accept it, you would have to acknowledge that you've overreacted after jumping to a conclusion that wasn't there, which means all of what you've said to me thus far is just unnecessary anger over nothing.

If you want to argue the pros and cons of prohibition, fine. If all you want to do is get angrier and scream-type at me about how you get to tell me what I said because it's how you interpreted it, do that by your lonesome. Like I said, this is circling between you trying to tell me what I said, and me telling you what I said, and it only seems to be getting uglier and has absolutely nothing to do with the actual topic at this point.