Since when is putting words I did not said in my mouth "contributing civilly"? If you make a gunfight out of a conversation do not blame me if you get shot.
you: >>Young kids who have done something incredibly stupid
>>They are then immediately put in a situation to fuck or fight.
IMHO this aspect of prison life is common knowledge. I wonder how incredibly stupid one has to be to risk getting jailed. And looking at the numbers that is not a marginal phenomenon.
I read this as
- it is common knowledge that prison includes fighting and rape
- if you know this (and you should), you accept this as part of your punishment for doing something that sends you to prison
You support this interpretation later on:
you: I still do not get how someone can not understand the consequences.
lolc: Many people who understand the consequences end up in jail. Are you saying they deserve the inhuman treatment because they knew about it?
To me, that's pretty close to how lolc is rephrasing your position, and asking if that's indeed what you mean. And they're not stating that is your position, which would be putting words in your mouth. They're asking you to clarify whether or not that's a fair restatement.
I see two assumptions made in the restatement:
- "fuck or fight" is inhuman[e] treatment. I'd say it is. Do you?
- "knowing the consequences, you act" => "you deserve the consequences" This seems like an acceptable assumption as well. What do you think?
Do you think this is a reasonable interpretation of what you said? That's how I read it, and squares with how I read lolc as interpreting what you said as well, while asking to confirm if that's what you mean. That's not putting words in your mouth.
This may not be what you mean. You're being asked to clarify. If it's not, I'd expect you explain where the interpretation is wrong, not just imply that it is ("Am I?") and leave it up to them to try again. And please clarify if I've mischaracterized what you've said as well.
Given that you find it useful to compare this conversation to a gunfight, it's likely wrong for me to expect you to be civil about it. I'm responding to clarify how I read the situation, and will leave it at that.
>> To me, that's pretty close to how lolc is rephrasing your position
>> "you deserve the consequences" [...] Do you think this is a reasonable interpretation of what you said? That's how I read it, and squares with how I read lolc as interpreting what you said as well
I did not said that anyone deserves an inhumant treatment like this. If you rephrase what I said and doing so it gets "pretty close to" or "reasonable interpreted as" something really stupid, that is not my fault. Both of us are better off if you just stop rephrasing my sentences, don't you think?
