I just got done reading the new posts to the original thread. There, the illustrious PRR is at present trying to squirm and weasel out of providing a cite for hir claim that spanking is illegal in parts of the US. Loser. Lying fucking loser.
Nitpick: Extra comma.
Opinion: Yes, PRU is being ridiculous and ok, disingenuous. So is the OP by taking PRU’s statement as an invitation to the Pit for no really good reason.
Conclusion: I’m still waiting for my beer.
I HAD NO IDEA! :eek:
I’ve been misreading his name all this time as Pseudotriton Rubber rubber.
I figured it was best not to ask about why he rubs his rubber…:smack:
His rubber what?. . . finish the sentence. . . 
well, I assumed ruber ruber was a guy, in which case a “rubber” already has a connotation.
If he was rubbing his Rubber, I didn’t want to know more about said activities.
Uh, no. What he wrote was:
(bolding mine)
Example: self defense or the defense of others
This may seem nit-picky, but you were the one in the original thread who insisted on getting in his face about “EXACTLY” what he said. But you failed. He said that guards, under some circumstances, have the authority to kill you. You claimed he said that guards are allowed to “commit homicide” and “execute” prisoners.
And best of all, you did this fully knowing that isn’t what he said or meant. So you’re not just an idiot who can’t read, you’re, as the OP says, a disingenuous idiot.
God damn, this is one of the most terrible threads ever. And “jack-hole” is such an unbelivably asinine insult that makes me legitimately angry just typing it.
How does the Arrogant Worms line go?
“And I wear a condom in case I have dirty thoughts.”
Let’s review that quote again. He claims “While you are incarcerated, you will be supervised by guards who have the authority to physically subdue you, or even kill you, should your level of misbehavior require it according to their rules and procedures.” How exactly is this different from the authority a peace officer has to “to physically subdue you, or even kill you, should your level of misbehavior require it according to their rules and procedures”? If I violate the rules and procedures of my locality by pointing a loaded gun at a police officer outside my home, screaming “I will kill you,” then I suppose that officer then, having exactly the same rights that a prison guard does, may kill me and may make his case before a court of law that this act was in “self defense or the defense of others.” Prison guards have no rights to kill prisoners that do not exist outside of prison walls. Zero. Zilch. Nada. If **Scumpup **is claiming otherwise, he’s wrong and so are you. If he’s not claiming otherwise, then what the hell is he claiming?
He said something. I challenged his statement. I continue to.
PRR’s point is that this example is irrelevant. Corporal punishment bears no relation to an action taken as self-protection (or saving another life.) If it was a punishment chosen by and undertaken by the guard, it would applicable, but as it is, it has no relevance to the topic.
Guards don’t have the right to use any level of force as punishment. Punishing people is by and large out of their job description. Scumpup statement painted it like they could shoot you if you were misbehaving: “we ultimately discipline adults through the threat of pain and death.”
Well, that’s a comforting thought to me, you getting the shit whacked out of you on a regular basis. That’s quite a job, though, and obviously there’s still a lot more shit in you than has been whacked out to date.
OK, so we agree on the unacceptablity of corporal punishment for kids, if you’re telling the truth about your personal policy regarding your daughter. That’s good to know. But you still remain a bully and a brute.
Where we disagree is on the validity of comparing kids to adults in re: corporal punishment. In the first place, it’s an analogy, not an item-for item exact equivalent, so “Comparisons to how we discipline adults are hilarious,” as you began your post in GD, is misleading. The comparison is neither hilarious nor literal–they’re just that, a comparison.
But your ability to compare things is very weak, ineptly so, in my view. You go on:
.
Your point here is beyond stupid, and it is your main point and, as far as I can tell, the entire subject of my response to you. Do “we” really “ultimately discipline adults through the threat of pain and death”? With the exception of the minute number of capital punishment crimes (at a guess, far fewer than .0001 percent of all cases before courts of law in the U.S., and exactly .0000 in most other countries–it’s unclear who you mean by “we”), we have outlawed the threat of death completely and I’d like to know where the threat of punishment by pain is incorporated into any law. As far as I know, the threat of pain is in fact specifically outlawed under the constitution–have you ever heard of the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment? That means no torture, no beatings, no mutilation, etc. No corporal punishment, in short. As a society, we have decided (finally) that punishing people by subjecting them to physical brutality is unacceptable.
In fact (at the risk of causing your brain to explode–a very small explosion, I’m sure), I’m going to bring up again the analogy of children and adults here: in the gravest of formal settings, those that are imposed by a judge after a trial with all legal rights observed, society still refuses to whack people out, though it would be the easiest and (for the victims) the most emotionally satisfying result of a guilty verdict. If you gave most crime victims the choice between seeing their assailants serve a 3-to-6 month term of confinement, with 3 meals a day and exercise privileges provided by law, as well as protection from any sort of brutal treatment, or seeing them worked over for forty-five minutes by an expert, don’t you think many if not most would choose the beating as their preferred form of punishment? But we don’t allow that, and for precisely the reason I oppose corporal punishment for kids: we must choose, often at great inconvenience and cost to yourselves, civilized ways of treating transgressors to be able to call ourselves civilized people.
As to the rest of your foolish quotation,
it utterly misses the point about punishment of convicted criminals as well. Punishment is NOT about physical brutality, which is strictly prohibited by law, and certainly not about prisoners being killed, and the fact that you think this is what the prison system is primarily about speaks volumes about your comic-book mentality. That physical brutality goes on in prison is undeniable, but it also goes on in rough urban neighborhoods, and even in ritzy homes in tony neighborhoods, which doesn’t begin to make it right or legal. Our society puts people in prison to isolate them from the ostensibly law-abiding community, to deprive them of their liberty to do as they please and associate with the people they prefer to, etc., and we have ruled as a society that the very things you (speaking for the morons of this world) claim is the purpose and function of imprisonment is wrong. You, sir, are a moron and an animal, and I’m very glad to have laws that prevent your brutal, bullying, sadistic and inhumane views from being given the least respect.
Ok. So what? His statement is still true if you want to get adamant about only responding to “EXACTLY” what he said. You’re apparently responding to the following statement:
“While you are incarcerated, you will be supervised by guards who have the authority above and beyond what any police officer would have to physically subdue you, or even kill you, should your level of misbehavior require it according to their rules and procedures.” (red part inserted by you)
Of course. I was merely responding to the fact that PRR wanted to get in a pissing match about exactly what someone said, rather than what he knew they meant, when in fact he was deliberately misreading what was said.
Fact is, he’s got a point. It’s a lousy example (In my opinion, that is. One could conceivably argue that the mere fact that the officers have these authorities over you can be construed as punitive in itself, and maybe that’s what the OP was saying; who knows). But he could just say that without turning into a douchenozzle.
Oh, and that bit with pkbites? Jesus. The guy makes a statement that allows for the possibility that spanking kids is illegal somewhere (because he doesn’t know definitively that it isn’t), and you throw that back at him and claim it’s a cite that spanking kids is definitely illegal somewhere? You’re deep in moron territory there.
I’m not his errand boy. If he wants to allow for the possiblity that spanking is illegal in some jurisdictions, then he has to live with it. If he wants to make the broader claim that it is legal everywhere, of course, then he can provide the cite. But if he’s going to claim that it’s illegal in most but not all places, then I’m satisfied with his statement.
No, I was responding to exactly what he wrote. The fact that you or I or a low-level moron could tell that the statement was so obviously wrong (guards have zero rights to kill their prisoners, as you note, beyond those granted to anyone else) doesn’t mean he gets a pass. Colossal stupidity and ineptitude at self-expression are no excuse.
You have no class nor any integrity, PRR. Anybody with an iota of either would have withdrawn the statements you made about me and the claim for which you refuse to provide a cite. This thread and the original stand as testament to your shortcomings. There is nothing I can add that will make you look worse than you’ve already done to yourself.
Good day to all.
Didn’t address a single point I made. Get the fuck out of here, please, and stay out. Far from withdrawing them, I proudly reiterate my claims that you are a simple piece of shit, and a coward and a bully and a moron, and I’m grateful for any distance between us. You have no skills at debate and no skills at Pitting, and are wasting my time and everyone’s time in following this discussion. You say stupid shit, and then repeat it, and toss off a few words of disparagement, and this constitutes your posts? If you refuse to crawl back into your gutter, would you please make a clear, cogent claim that I have done something you wish to dispute, in language we are capable of understanding? (That means “in clear, readable, rational English.”) WTF are you claiming? That you have a right to assert that guards may legally kill their prisoners? Or are you off that yet?
I hope you mean meat pie, otherwise that’s just disgusting.
Anyways, I am glad that this new tradition of having a post padding party thread on the pit is growing strong.
(and count me among those who always read it as rubber rubber)
As for this thread itself: “me too” to whatever it is we are piling on, if the metooist position is not already taken.
I stopped reading the thread here so I may be late to the party, but what you wrote above is as wrong as it can be. Prison guards and police officers absolutely have the right to kill citizens under certain circumstances. This is so obvious that you must be being intentionally disingenuous to write that.
Let’s not open that can of worms. The argument was one of semantics, as in prison guards don’t have the right to execute prisoners at their whim.
Not like anyone was claiming they could, but it seems that’s the point that Positraction Rubber Rubber* was wrestling out of it.
*Sorry … not really making fun, I just can never remember precisely all the letters involved there, and I like saying Positraction. Makes me feel all Marissa Tomei-ish.