chitoryu12 wrote:I'll have to think on that one a bit more. I'm still trying to see how a three inch paper stick is a public nuissance. It's similar to how driving a car down the freeway is bad because it contributes to the total amount of carbon dioxide in the air, when it really doesn't do that much, as compared to burning piles of dead trees by the side of the road, which the Georgia government decided to do.
I'll use operators, that might help:
Big litter= Sum of Small Litter = Bad.
Small litter = Bad.
Public Masturbating = Big Litter = Bad
Private Masturbating <> Small litter
Got it?
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
chitoryu12 wrote:I'll have to think on that one a bit more. I'm still trying to see how a three inch paper stick is a public nuissance. It's similar to how driving a car down the freeway is bad because it contributes to the total amount of carbon dioxide in the air, when it really doesn't do that much, as compared to burning piles of dead trees by the side of the road, which the Georgia government decided to do.
One three-inch stick perhaps not. Multiply that by several hundred, and you have what would happen if, say, smokers were given free reign to throw their cigarette butts everywhere and anywhere, which equates to a major public nuisance and potential health and/or environmental hazard. Not that they don't do that already.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
chitoryu12 wrote:I'll have to think on that one a bit more. I'm still trying to see how a three inch paper stick is a public nuissance. It's similar to how driving a car down the freeway is bad because it contributes to the total amount of carbon dioxide in the air, when it really doesn't do that much, as compared to burning piles of dead trees by the side of the road, which the Georgia government decided to do.
Try getting everyone who drives on a freeway for a typical weekday each throw a three inch stick out of their cars at, say, a mile past the onramp. Pretty soon you'll have a big mess at the mile marker down the road. Now you see the trouble?
I was talking about issuing a very large fine for one very small infraction of the law. Yes, if hundreds of people did it, there would be a problem, but they are not. Now, if hundreds of prisoners spent recreation time masturbating and every one of them took paper towels and wasted them for their personal pleasure, there would be a problem, but we are talking about one man being punished for something that would have little to no impact on the prison. Dropping one tiny object is not cause for major fuss, and neither is jerking off in your cell alone.
Multiply that by several hundred, and you have what would happen if, say, smokers were given free reign to throw their cigarette butts everywhere and anywhere, which equates to a major public nuisance and potential health and/or environmental hazard. Not that they don't do that already.
Aside from the fact that smoking in itself is harmful to anyone nearby, a smoldering cigarette releasing bad smells and small amounts of toxic fumes is quite different from a tiny paper stick sitting on the side of the road.
chitoryu12 wrote:I was talking about issuing a very large fine for one very small infraction of the law. Yes, if hundreds of people did it, there would be a problem, but they are not. Now, if hundreds of prisoners spent recreation time masturbating and every one of them took paper towels and wasted them for their personal pleasure, there would be a problem, but we are talking about one man being punished for something that would have little to no impact on the prison. Dropping one tiny object is not cause for major fuss, and neither is jerking off in your cell alone.
That's retarded. The amount of people performing an act doesn't change whether it's harmful or not, merely the degree of harm caused. Perhaps you could actually try explaining why masturbation in relative privacy is harmful.
Aside from the fact that smoking in itself is harmful to anyone nearby, a smoldering cigarette releasing bad smells and small amounts of toxic fumes is quite different from a tiny paper stick sitting on the side of the road.
How?
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
The former smells bad, releases toxic fumes, and is a major fire hazard. The latter just sits there unnoticed and eventually disintegrates.
That's why they have BIGGER fines for throwing flaming debris from a car. "A little stick" is litter. All litter gets fined. LARGE amounts of litter are as much litter as a 'little stick'. Why? Because it all accumulates at rates faster than it degrades.
What part is difficult for you?
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
I was using it in an analogy to show how such serious enforcement of a rule is ridiculous. Forcing someone to pay $1000 over a tiny, mostly harmless object is just as stupid as punishing someone for masturbating in private.
chitoryu12 wrote:
I never said that it was. It wastes a prisoner's free time and you use up a paper towel. That's it.
It's not as if they have anything else to do there for fuck's sake. And what guy doesn't wank on a semi-regular basis unless they're either getting laid frequently or have bizarre sexual hangups?
The former smells bad, releases toxic fumes, and is a major fire hazard. The latter just sits there unnoticed and eventually disintegrates.
In the meantime it stands to be eaten by whatever animal happens to pass by and otherwise uglies up the road.
I was using it in an analogy to show how such serious enforcement of a rule is ridiculous. Forcing someone to pay $1000 over a tiny, mostly harmless object is just as stupid as punishing someone for masturbating in private.
The fact that a situation is ridiculous isn't going to make an analogy any less shitty.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
chitoryu12 wrote:I was using it in an analogy to show how such serious enforcement of a rule is ridiculous. Forcing someone to pay $1000 over a tiny, mostly harmless object is just as stupid as punishing someone for masturbating in private.
No, forcing someone to pay $1000 for littering a piece of litter ensures that not only will they never litter again, but that everyone who hears that story will never litter again.
Stuart: The only problem is, I'm losing track of which universe I'm in.
You kinda look like Jesus. With a lightsaber.- Peregrin Toker
Okay, I defended your post a couple pages back but now you're just being thick. Two completely different things, thousands of prisoners masturbating alone in their jail cell = harmless, thousands of motorists littering the highway = public nuisance. Blow pop stick, the candy part may disintegrate in to too much long of a time, but the plastic part would not.
Brotherhood of the Monkey @( !.! )@ To give anything less than your best is to sacrifice the gift. ~Steve Prefontaine Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at an Elingsh uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht frist and lsat ltteer are in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit a porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae we do not raed ervey lteter by it slef but the wrod as a wlohe.
She is now the laughing stock of all her co-workers. That is pretty much assured. Also she is probably a target now for all the inmates. Some people just get offended way to easily and it looks like she's one of them.
But tell me, were exactly is an inmate going to masterbate? His cell seems like the most obvious place to me, unless hes the bitch to someone else.
The litter thing, very bad analogy as has been pointed out.
But tell me, were exactly is an inmate going to masterbate? His cell seems like the most obvious place to me, unless hes the bitch to someone else.
In the article Einhander posted, it said that she was watching his cell from a security monitor. I assume he just went into a corner when nobody was looking.
The litter thing, very bad analogy as has been pointed out.
I take it you also missed the part where I conceded the arguement?
Put it this way...if you concede, you end it there, you don't continue posting screeching. You're borderline spambot as is. This is not helping.
And mocking your stupid ass, is allowed. You proposed a fucking idiotic analogy. You conceded only AFTER they practically drilled into your thick skull how fucking dumb it was. You conceded on the level of "We'll agree to disagree" with your half assed "The argument will never end.".
MM /CF/WG/BOTM/JL/Original Warsie/ACPATHNTDWATGODW FOREVER!!
Sometimes we can choose the path we follow. Sometimes our choices are made for us. And sometimes we have no choice at all
