Pigskin pranksters' punishment postponed

Great Debates
21

[QUOTE=silenus]
20 years of teaching in a football-happy town gives me a bit of insight, yes. The coach doesn’t run anything by anybody. But the Friday night those two don’t start, the coach’s days are numbered. He will be in the Principal’s office by 8am Monday defending his decision, while the Principal answers phone calls from the school board, the mayor, and every other bigshot in town. If the kids don’t play, that coach will be teaching Sophomore PE so fast you won’t believe it.
[/QUOTE]
Wow, my post was there, and then it wasn’t. So, anyway, while I respect your 20+years of experience, I believe that your argument from the specific to the general is unpersuasive.

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
And the stats are probably available, if I knew where to look for them.
[/QUOTE]
As is yours.

22

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
As is yours.
[/QUOTE]

What are you considering to be my argument from the specific to the general?

My argument is general. Don’t swerve for deer. Yes, there could be times when it’s safer, just as a person can be killed because she’s wearing a seatbelt, yet I will say, “Wear a seatbelt. It’s safer.”

There are a ton of insurance, AAA, DNR, and DOT sites that say the same thing. That doesn’t necessarily prove it’s safer, but it shows that I’m not exactly coming up with something radical here.

Heck, there are apparently whole ad campaigns, like Iowa’s “Don’t Veer for Deer.”

23

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
What are you considering to be my argument from the specific to the general?
[/QUOTE]
You know, that was a bad comparison. Here is what I should have said.

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
And the stats are probably available, if I knew where to look for them.
[/QUOTE]
If a frog had wings, he wouldn’t bump his ass every time he jumps.

Either support your statement, and I quote – **Never swerve for deer! **-- or retract it. You may want to contemplate the restrictions suggested by the word ‘never.’

24

The kids are going to be punished anyway

The deferment prevents a whole load of other people being punished

It strikes me as a sensible approach

Also any punishment they finally get is going to be trivial compared with the hostility that they will face from their team, coach and just about everyone down to the hot dog vendor.

I think I would give them three weeks scraping up road kill.

25

[QUOTE=FRDE]
The kids are going to be punished anyway
[/QUOTE]
But not nearly enough, considering that they left one of their victims brain damaged.

What load of people? Punished how?

26

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
But not nearly enough, considering that they left one of their victims brain damaged.
[/QUOTE]

That is down to the judge

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
What load of people? Punished how?
[/QUOTE]

They are two members of a football team

  • teams are trained to work as a unit
  • remove those two idiots and the ‘unit’ ceases to function

The deferment is not a ‘gift’ to the two idiots, to be honest I don’t think that they’ll much enjoy those 60 days, it is to prevent other people suffering (more) from their stupidity.

27

[QUOTE=FRDE]
They are two members of a football team

  • teams are trained to work as a unit
  • remove those two idiots and the ‘unit’ ceases to function
    [/quote]

You see, this is where we differ.

You look at the deferment as a way to keep innocent football players from being punished for someone else’s actions.

I look at it as an opportunity to teach all those innocent football players how important it is not to break the law and fuck around. If they see their teammates (and the quarterback himself!) get smacked down hard, they’ll toe the line.

If you defer the punishment, you’re teaching the whole team that football is more important than the law, more important than someone’s safety, more important than anything else in town.

28

[QUOTE=Fish]
You see, this is where we differ.

You look at the deferment as a way to keep innocent football players from being punished for someone else’s actions.

I look at it as an opportunity to teach all those innocent football players how important it is not to break the law and fuck around. If they see their teammates (and the quarterback himself!) get smacked down hard, they’ll toe the line.

If you defer the punishment, you’re teaching the whole team that football is more important than the law, more important than someone’s safety, more important than anything else in town.
[/QUOTE]

I get your point, but I don’t agree

Extrapolating ridiculously, you appear to be saying if I burgle a house, then everyone else in the town should spend a night in the cooler.

Probably, like me, you are not a sports fanatic

  • however, with a little imagination, bolstered by earlier posts, I can see that giving those two guys 60 days /deferment/ is not for /their/ benefit.

In 60 days they will get the book thrown at them, in the interim they serve as a warning to all those around them.

I expect that in 60 days, the judge will have thought up a really inventive and unpleasant punishment for them.

If one regards it as 60 days house arrest, interrupted by daily public beratings from the coach, then that /deferment/ is not exactly a favour.

In effect it is 60 days in the stocks, followed by an unpleasant punishment.
If they perform well on the pitch, I doubt that their ultimate punishment will be reduced, but if they do badly /for the team/ then it could be increased.

Actually this is more interesting than it appears on the surface

  • a Stakhanovite implementation of punishment
  • quite an interesting concept
29

[QUOTE=FRDE]
…In 60 days they will get the book thrown at them, in the interim they serve as a warning to all those around them.

I expect that in 60 days, the judge will have thought up a really inventive and unpleasant punishment for them…
[/QUOTE]
Or not,[

](http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/19/deerdecoy.crash.ap/index.html)CMC fnord!

30

[QUOTE=FRDE]
Extrapolating ridiculously, you appear to be saying if I burgle a house, then everyone else in the town should spend a night in the cooler.
[/QUOTE]

Well, you got that part right at least! :smiley:

I still feel that all this teaches anybody is that if you are the quarterback, people will always makes excuses for you and you’ll always be treated special.

Maybe the offensive line will “fall down” on a play or three and let some senior linebacker test the quarterbacks manhood a few times. That might make him realize that he isn’t special after all.

31

[QUOTE=FRDE]
I get your point, but I don’t agree

Extrapolating ridiculously, you appear to be saying if I burgle a house, then everyone else in the town should spend a night in the cooler.
[/QUOTE]

I feel like what Fish is saying is that if you burgle a house, the fact that you have a big project at work due next month is not a reason to release you, even if your colleagues will miss out on a bonus because of it.

32

[QUOTE=silenus]
Well, you got that part right at least! :smiley:

I still feel that all this teaches anybody is that if you are the quarterback, people will always makes excuses for you and you’ll always be treated special.

Maybe the offensive line will “fall down” on a play or three and let some senior linebacker test the quarterbacks manhood a few times. That might make him realize that he isn’t special after all.
[/QUOTE]

I don’t know much about American football

  • and I really don’t want to know

However, I have been thinking about this thread, and I have come to the conclusion that the judge was seriously smart.

Probably due to small town pressure, he succumbed, (which is not that dumb) but what is interesting is that he might have uncovered a ‘principle’.

33

[QUOTE=Bill Door]
I feel like what Fish is saying is that if you burgle a house, the fact that you have a big project at work due next month is not a reason to release you, even if your colleagues will miss out on a bonus because of it.
[/QUOTE]

Sounds sane to me

  • what is the difference between a kick in the slats today and a kick in the slats tomorrow ?
34

The big difference I see in this is that the two miscreants get something out of the deal. If they play hard and their team wins, they they will go off to Juvie as heroes, with all their friends talking about what great guys they are and how they got railroaded. If they go to Juvie now, then that all changes. They get out as bums, and everybody hates them for being dickheads who cost their team the championship. A much better punishment in my book.

35

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
Either support your statement, and I quote – **Never swerve for deer! **-- or retract it. You may want to contemplate the restrictions suggested by the word ‘never.’
[/QUOTE]

You may want to contemplate the restrictions suggested by the word “quote.”

36

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
You may want to contemplate the restrictions suggested by the word “quote.”
[/QUOTE]
My bad. It was “Don’t swerve for deer.” Thanks for catching that. Rhetorical point scored. Any objections to the substance of my post, or is it your contention that ‘never do x’ and ‘don’t do x’ have entirely different meanings?

[QUOTE=FRDE]
They are two members of a football team

  • teams are trained to work as a unit
  • remove those two idiots and the ‘unit’ ceases to function

The deferment is not a ‘gift’ to the two idiots, to be honest I don’t think that they’ll much enjoy those 60 days, it is to prevent other people suffering (more) from their stupidity.
[/QUOTE]
Please. If the two payers had been injured in a game would the unit have ceased to function? This is just silly.

60 days confinement for causing a wreck that leaves someone brain-damaged is less than a slap on the wrist. To defer it so that the perpetrators can play high school football is idiotic.

37

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
My bad. It was “Don’t swerve for deer.” Thanks for catching that. Rhetorical point scored. Any objections to the substance of my post, or is it your contention that ‘never do x’ and ‘don’t do x’ have entirely different meanings?
[/QUOTE]

Yes, that is my contention. As I have already said, there may be times when swerving is safer, but it is not generally safer, just as there may be times when not wearing a seatbelt is safer, but it is not generally safer.

Another consideration:

38

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Yes, that is my contention.
[/QUOTE]
“Don’t do x” and “Never do x” have entirely different meanings? Allrighty then.

Minor question. Where in the statement “Don’t do x” do you find an allowance for “Sometimes do x.”?

39

[QUOTE=Contrapuntal]
My bad. It was “Don’t swerve for deer.” Thanks for catching that. Rhetorical point scored. Any objections to the substance of my post, or is it your contention that ‘never do x’ and ‘don’t do x’ have entirely different meanings?
Please. If the two payers had been injured in a game would the unit have ceased to function? This is just silly.

60 days confinement for causing a wreck that leaves someone brain-damaged is less than a slap on the wrist. To defer it so that the perpetrators can play high school football is idiotic.
[/QUOTE]

  1. Probably yes - ask a top Harvard rower

  2. 60 days DEFERMENET - it is odd to you, and it is slightly odd to me, but to the vast majority of people it makes perfect sense.

  • next time your house is burning down, worry whether I am in prison garb
  • worry more if I am not there
  • do you want a fire fighter or … just thin air

It is an interesting concept, and I think it might work

  • I now patent it as Stakhanovite Punishment
40

[QUOTE=FRDE]

  1. Probably yes - ask a top Harvard rower

  2. 60 days DEFERMENET - it is odd to you, and it is slightly odd to me, but to the vast majority of people it makes perfect sense.

  • next time your house is burning down, worry whether I am in prison garb
  • worry more if I am not there
  • do you want a fire fighter or … just thin air

It is an interesting concept, and I think it might work

  • I now patent it as Stakhanovite Punishment
    [/QUOTE]
    You are losing me. we are talking about a football team, not a rowing squad. And so what? Two alternates can step in.
    The punishment was not deferred for 60 days. It consists of 60 days.
    I must confess that the rest of your post is incomprehensible to me, at least in the context of this thread.