Interpreting what has been said of your chicanery as that is insane, given that the whole problem with your discussion "technique" is to misrepresent what's been said to you and throw the victim card.
I thought that a couple of weeks off to reflect on why you lie about what other people say to you and to grow up would have helped.
You didn't answer my last question.
It is not a victim card, it's an observation based on the quoted post (that the problem lies with me rather than just acknowledging that we disagree and moving on). Consider what is happening here:
There’s comfort in being surrounded by like-minded people, but challenge is important, and we may have to look for it elsewhere, says Guardian columnist Gaby Hinsliff
www.theguardian.com
Everyone retreats to places without selective pressure to open themselves up to change or debate.
Does that mean they're right?
Thank you.
I believe so, in that the sentence is too harsh considering all factors (expanded on below).
The people who posted here don't and are siding with the judge's decision. That's....
fine, but so far I haven't seen a convincing defence of
why they agree with that (insofar as the aggravating factors overriding the mitigating ones and warranting such a lengthy sentence, especially in light of
many recent decisions by the judiciary), and I'm pointing out they are almost certainly in the minority once outside of the forum.
He probably just went off and found another bubble to amplify his rage during his vacation instead.
I can't tell if this is sarcasm.
I listed sites I go to - do you believe I should expose myself to others?
I'm also confused by the "amplify his rage" comment. You seem to be taking the view of others here in that I should ignore the news because it provokes emotions. This, again, is head-in-the-sand thinking and, like I said before, isn't what I'm about.
You can continue to pretend otherwise but that doesn't make it reality.
.. by advocating for justice based on the Daily Mail comments section.
Utterly stupid.
This is profoundly silly.
I've laid out my case logically:
1) We have a prison crisis
2) Many people who have committed subjectively "worse" crimes are getting shorter sentences/not seeing the inside of a cell at all
3) We are reviewing sentencing with the view of better-serving society
4) The guy's crimes harmed companies that make money from charging high fees to watch certain events and he provided an (illegal) service to people who wouldn't normally be able to afford it.
5) From the limited history given in my last post, I'm quite sympathetic to the story (such as has been revealed) of how he got there (losing job, providing for family, drug abuse). Sure, he could be playing the system, but I don't think making such an example of him benefits many. That's without going into copyright law and how the prevalence of these Firesticks could lead to a shift similar to when people were pirating music all the time.
6) Comments about this story in the DM, on Twitter, and on Reddit mostly suggest that people think it was too harsh—this place is the exception.