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.
As is yours.
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.”
You know, that was a bad comparison. Here is what I should have said.
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.’
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.
But not nearly enough, considering that they left one of their victims brain damaged.
What load of people? Punished how?
That is down to the judge
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.
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.
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
Or not,[
](http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/19/deerdecoy.crash.ap/index.html)CMC fnord!
Well, you got that part right at least! 
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.
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.
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’.
Sounds sane to me
- what is the difference between a kick in the slats today and a kick in the slats tomorrow ?
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.
You may want to contemplate the restrictions suggested by the word “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?
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.
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:
“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.”?
-
Probably yes - ask a top Harvard rower
-
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
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.