I’m never been so naive as to think that was true, and I’m sure that your husband’s experience bears that out in a prison setting within which he works. Of course, I wonder if circumstances aren’t different in a jail setting which is generally a different population and more short-term. (Isn’t it? I’m asking for confirmation from others as well as you.)
Did you even read Giraffe’s post? I said, “I doubt any of the people posting here really want to throw away our civilized system of justice in favor of vigilante rule.” You responded to say that you did. Now you’re saying I’m making up a strawman when I assign you exactly the view you expressed? Word for word, you began arguing the point that I thought was entirely moot. I stated that I didn’t think anyone favored throwing out civilized justice in favor of vigilanteism. You specifically stated that you did. I don’t see how you can then claim that, all along, you’ve been arguing for civilized justice when you explicitly disagreed with me because I said everyone here favored civilized justice.
You are twisting and turning like a twisting, turning thing, Weirddave. You started this by disagreeing with something I said. I wasn’t arguing that the death penalty is inappropriate for this case. (I’m opposed to it on principle, but as I indicated earlier, this is certainly not the sort of incident that firms up my conviction.) I simply stated that - despite the rather macho claims of some of this thread’s posters - I don’t think people really favor hangin’ mobs making these decisions. That’s the statement you specifically argued with.
You wanna change your mind? Fine. I’ll think more of you if you admit that no, you don’t actually favor exactly what I said everyone in this thread didn’t actually favor and that your argument with me was entirely the result of your misunderstanding. I’m not sure I’ll believe you, but at least it would show that you’re not committed to sticking with some wacky viewpoint just because you ran into it in the heat of the moment.
There was no strawman. I said that - appearances to the contrary - you guys really don’t favor the townspeople-with-torches-and-pitchforks model of justice. If you indeed don’t favor it, then I was clearly stating your point for you.
Are ye daft mon? This all goes back to your statement that I supported vigilante mob rule. I agreed with that statement, but when you called me on it, I clarified that what I was actually talking about was execution in this particular case. I expected you to accept that and procede on that basis. Instead you have continued to harp on the “vigilante justice” strawman. Did this thread end for you when you made you triumphent decleration of victory, or are you willing to let that go and talk about the actual things that I said after I clarified the misconception that you’re pushing?
Jails usually have less “privacy” than prisons, so the opprotunity is less. The power dynamic between inmates is different as well.
Most prison rapes are what you could call “coercive rape” rather than forcible, violent rape. Generally what happens is that a new inmate is taken under the wing of a long-termer for “protection”. (They hint to the new guy that someone’s out to get them.) Over time, they start pressuring the new guy to give them favors-- at first giving them their potato chips, or something, and then it moves on to demanding sexual favors. The inmate feels trapped into doing something he doesn’t want to do.
It’s a hard thing to combat, because the victims don’t want to report it. Staff are trained to look for the obvious signs, like injuries, but it can be difficult to discover if someone is being coerced.
In the eight years Hubby was worked in a prison housing over 2,900 inmates, he has only had one claim of forcible, violent rape.
My statement was that no one supports mob rule. You disagreed with that statement and indicated that you do. I didn’t accuse you of anything. I made a general statement about the people posting in this thread. And that statement was precisely to say that they didn’t believe the awful things they were suggesting.
Look, at this point, you’ve given up all pretense of trying to have a rational discussion. Reread Giraffe’s post if you want, because that leaves zero doubt that I accused you of absolutely nothing. You spoke up deliberately to say that you do support mob justice. Don’t blame me for what you said.
I can’t believe you keep claiming this is a straw man, when the only thing I said - the thing that started you on this nutso tirade - is that people in this thread don’t really support mobs dispensing justice. When you said you did, it’s hard to see why it’s a strawman to remark on that.
You’re either so far from rational that you can’t discuss anything, or you’re simply making up bizarre lies in order to avoid responsibility for what you said. Go away, Weirddave. Whether you’re a liar or a lunatic, my time is far to valuable to waste it on someone like you.
I like this one. I am opposed to the death penulty. Not due to any bleeding heart liberalism, but for that tiny chance that a person might be innocent, but more importantly, because it’s the easy way out for them.
I think that they need to live out the rest of their lives in prison without the possibility of parole. Your solution is even better than gen pop.
Well, if you’re not going to waste your time with me, maybe you would be served by taking a reading comprehension course. You continue to completely ignore what I clearly said in post 92, instead always refering back to post 79, because if you acknowledge it what I actually said in post 92, your entire stupid, ignorant argument goes away. Not cricket old bean.
Post 92 had no relevance at all to our conversation. Your current tack of trying to change the topic of argument is silly; I did not come here to argue over the merits of the death penalty for people who sodomize and murder infants. Obviously you consider that more fertile grounds for discussion, but I don’t really care to talk about it. Trying to change the topic of discussion midstream is not going to work, as I’m not interested in your new topic. And trying to avoid taking responsibility for what you clearly said is simply sad. What you said is clear. If you changed your mind about what you want to talk about after the fact, I don’t really care.
Unfortunately for you, my reading comprehension is quite good. That’s why I haven’t been confused by your more recent posts to forget what you said to start this conversation.
Thank you for admitting that my last post was spot on. You ARE avoiding what I’ve been talking about because you have no argument with it. See, admitting the truth can be good for you. Don’t you feel better now that you’ve come clean about not debating fairly? Honesty builds character EX, good to see you following that path.
Um, right. I don’t go around arguing with everything anyone says. That’s not “avoiding what [you’ve] been talking about”. I was arguing with the specific point you began in Post 79. The fact that you’re so dishonest that you’re not even willing to admit that you don’t have an actual argument there and don’t want to try to back up your words doesn’t mean I’m somehow obligated to have a different argument with you.
Sorry, Weirddave, but it ain’t gonna fly. We were arguing one thing, and you decided that (given that your original point was stupid) you wished to argue about something else. I’m not sure why you think I’m obligated to have a different argument with you, particularly when you still don’t have the honesty to admit that you can’t back your original argument with me - the one you started by saying that you do favor mob justice.
Trying to change the subject without admitting that your original argument was ridiculous is, simply, a liar’s tactic. You could take a few hints from Cartooniverse’s pitting of Bricker - if you’re going to be a liar, Weirddave, you could study up on his techniques. He may be batshit insane, but he’s far better at sneakily changing the subject than you are.
At any rate, the argument I signed on for was the one you started in favor of mob justice. The fact that you no longer want to back the views you expressed at first doesn’t mean I’m somehow obligated to have a different argument with you of your choosing. Not only are you a liar, Weirddave, but I have to wonder if all your mental faculties are there, because that simply doesn’t even make sense.
I’m sorry you feel cornered because you can’t back up what you said. The answer to that (besides not starting batshit-insane arguments) is admitting that you were wrong. Trying to sneakily force the people involved in your argument into a different one is a liar’s tactic. You’re not even good at it, Weirddave. You could learn from the more skilled liars on the board if that’s what you are.
I love watching 4 year olds clench their fists and stamp their feet and grind theior teeth going “You said that! You did! You did!” while ignoring context and anything outside the scope of their tantrum. You go Ex! You tell me! I said it! IdidIdidIdidIdid!
So tell me, Weirddave. Is this a new rule? If anyone doesn’t want to defend what they said, they have the right to obligate anyone they’re arguing with to have a completely different argument?
I’m sorry that you feel trapped by the rather stupid argument you started. Why not try to salvage what little bit of dignity you still have by admitting it was a stupid argument to make in the first place?
Sorry, Weirddave, but there’s no “context” that somehow magically requires me to have a different argument because you know you can’t defend the crazy shit you said earlier. Just admit that you were wrong to argue with my post in the first place. If you really don’t have the viewpoint you claimed to have - if you don’t have any argument with the post of mine that you argued with then just stop. (In which case, you might as well not have wasted your time arguing with it. I mean, why do you start arguments when there’s nothing to disagree with?)
Seriously, dude, this is just pathetic. Being unwilling to admit it when you made a bizarre, crazy argument just compounds it.
All you have to do is go back and read my posts in this thread. Since you’re obviously not willing to look at what actually transpired, I’ll lay it out for you. First of all, I was participating in this thread before you pitched in. I suggested that crucifiction would be an apropriate punishment for this asshole (only about 1/4 in jest). Then you pitched in with post 76, where you said:
I respeonded “wanna bet?”. Your response was simply to toss off an insult in post 85, which I responded to in post 88, and then you proceded to deliver your soliloquy on the merits of civilization and the danger of vigilantees in post 89. OK, if you wanna post something serious, I can play, so I responded in post 92. A serious response, with the intention of clarifying exactly what I was talking about (which in fact had been what I was talking about before you wandered into the thread). I, quite clearly, said:
Now, instead of accepting that and proceding with the conversation like a rational adult, you’ve done nothing but jump up and down and repeat over and over “You said you support mob rule! You said it, you did, I heard you! You said it!” You have ignored what I posted, ignored the point I made about the two different meanings of the word justice and the confusion might cause, ignored everything except your “you said it” childish litany. THAT’S what’s pathetic in this thread, your refusal to address any of the issues I raised because you are trying to “win” a meaningless point.
That’s specifically what you said. My post was only directed at people who had suggested vigilanteism, and you spoke up to say that you did. If you didn’t really think that, all you had to do was admit that you were wrong to bitch at me in those first few posts. As I said, I don’t have any desire to argue about the rightness of capital punishment in this case. If that’s what you want to talk about, find someone else to argue with. Trying to force me to be your opponent in an argument that I don’t particularly care about is a sleazy way to avoid responsibility for what you said.
All you have to do is admit that you were wrong to argue with me. I’m not obligated to have an entirely different argument. As my posts in this thread make abundantly clear, I was only addressing the people who called for the actual justice system to be abandoned. If you pretended to take that viewpoint in order to try to force me to argue about something entirely different, then too bad. I’m not interested in discussing that.
Arguing with you is like arguing with a child. This whole thing boils down to you saying, “Sure, I said that, but I meant something entirely different! How dare you try to argue with what I said rather than what I meant? How dare you try to avoid arguing what I want to argue, rather than what we actually were talking about?” Just admit that you were wrong when you argued with my first post, and find someone else to debate the death penalty with, because I don’t care about that issue, and it’s bizarre and irrational for you to pretend that I have some obligation to do so.
I would really rather that we not use rape to punish criminals in this society anyway. At the very least, I don’t think that the scumbag who hit my friend in the head with a baseball bat and took his wallet, then left him crumpled up between the curb and his car for six hours should be the person charged to carry out the sentence.
I propose that we have our legislators determine which crimes merit a sentence of rape. Then we need to hire a few State Rapists, who would be protected under Civil Service and belong to CSEA/AFSCME. This way, we can ensure that prisoners are raped in a regulated, fair and transparent manner.