[rquoter] In addition to the 19 hijackers, 2,973 people died; another 24 are missing and presumed dead. [/rquoter] [rquoter] For 2002, the figures were 17,419 alcohol-related deaths, or 41 percent of all traffic fatalities. [/rquoter] You are right. The average American is hundreds if not thousands of times more likely to die as a direct result of a drunk driver than than at the hands of a terrorist. Good job pointing that out.
That's significantly different than Padilla's treatment, IMO (no outdoor exercise, no light dimming, blackout goggles, etc) It seems pretty clear that a deliberate effort at sensory deprivation was made at Padilla. You might think that 1 hour of exercise and the rest doesn't make a big difference, but I think it probably does to the inmate. You could be - but I doubt you'd get the full sensory deprivation treatment like Padilla got ever. Even then, only unless you were Hannibal Lecter-type dangerous or an extremely violent offender from the inside. He didn't, he was nothing, the guy didn't even speak arabic or urdu or any relevant language, nor has it ever been alleged (as it has in the past with regard to other guys kept in inhumane conditions) that he's ever given anything actionable (nor would he be, by all estimations the guy was just a wannabe) and fake executions, truth serum, sensory deprivation = torture by any definition. Not isolation - sensory deprivation is different. ANd the government isn't ok with it, which is why they're not.
Your position is that getting a DWI is worse than being a terrorist. Now you're just making an ass out of yourself. I'm not sure why you're continuing to argue this. I already said in the beginning that I didn't have a problem with him being in isolation, then reconsidered.
Priceless. Hardly. The statistics are what they are. It's similar to parents having an irrational fear of their children being around guns, even though they are far more likely to die in a backyard pool. Careful not to assess what Ottomaton may be implying. We all know that's specifically forbidden in Hayesian debate.
Not at all. There is a moral judgement involved in the comparison as well. Should we equate someone who purposely attempt to kill people with someone who has no such intention? Of course not. There is a difference between manslaughter and murder (in the worst case - of course his statistic also included the drunk driver him/herself). If that isn't the case then what is the point? No, it is ok since Ottomaton specifically called for us to take those leaps and make implied connections from subtle statements. What you may be referring to is when I point out someone mistaken what I've implied or if I've implied anything at all.
Uh - that's what I just did too, doofus. Feel free to point out those pesky "subtle statements" that somehow absolve you of your typical hypocrisy with regard to your own bloody standards of nitpickitude.
Yes, of course it is rhad. But you aren't really in position to tell what ottomaton implied or didn't, nor are you taking the context of the thread into account where he already accused me of not taking the next step from subtle inferences - ie he is criticizing me for NOT doing what I have previously criticized you FOR doing. Hence I am hardly being hypocritical. I am just suspending my own view and adopting his to make a point.
I'm fairly sure that a T-Rex with lasers is worse than a terrorist, but I think most Americans should be more concerned about preventing the deaths caused by terrorists than preventing deaths from T-Rexes with lasers.
Hell, I'd pay damn good money to see a T-Rex with lasers. I saw T-Rex the group, but no lasers. D&D. Bang a Gong.
On that note, Deckard - I know you had a red light incident. In 2004 168,000 people were hurt in accidents resulting from someone running a red light. We definitely should make the penalties more punative for that issue than for terrorism. D&D. Get it On!
The way my back feels right now, I'm for putting them against a wall! D&D. Lenin said to Stop at a Red Light!
