> Delta is a private company looking to impose even harsher blanket bans arbitrarily.
Did you click through the link? Where it uses the word "convicted" in both the headline and the first paragraph? There's nothing arbitrary about the proposal at all.
>Being banned from any flight for being a nuisance is nothing like any of those cases.
Being on the no fly list only stops you from flying commercially. You're free to fly privately. If it's too expensive, well, flying in general is expensive and lots of people never fly in their lives.
>My God man, this is deranged!
Really? It's not uncommon to restrain people who have engaged in physical violence against others.
>You spent 2 lines being completely wrong about the facts trying to contradict my opinion,
Your opinion is predicated on untruth. And my two lines are fully, factually correct.
>and 80% of your comment with a deranged description of how someone should be abused, humiliated, punished, and almost guaranteed killed in case of an accident just for the "privilege" of being on a flight after doing something stupid.
Yes. Engaging in physical violence against innocent people leading to long term anxiety about air travel and sometimes causing permanent disfigurement is just "doing something stupid."
>Surely if such punishments were applied every time you did something stupid we would be having a different conversation now. I know because I've seen too many people with "radical" ideas having a moment of enlightenment when being at the wrong end of them.
I suspect not. As a functioning adult with a developed prefrontal cortex I've never assaulted anyone. It's not me who has the outrageous idea, it's you. Acting as if you can hit someone and then go on about your life as if you never did is ridiculous. On the other hand hundreds of thousands of people every day fly and they don't hit anyone. The vast majority of people in the US manage to go their entire lives without engaging in unprovoked violence against others at all. Unprovoked violence is not normal and that those who engage in it are not permanently separated from civil society is a courtesy, not a right.
> I suspect not. As a functioning adult with a developed prefrontal cortex
You proposed ridiculously cruel and unusual punishment. A form of torture, clearly endangering that person's life, physical and mental health, that is illegal and immoral anywhere. Something no court would impose on anyone. You took something that the law punishes a certain way and escalated it sky high with an abhorrent, deranged, and disproportionate proposal, an affront to anything legal, moral, or decent.
This kind of extremist views don't exist in a void, they're accompanied sooner or later by equally extreme actions. Your words and view are no different from those of extremists, people who are a danger to society because they eventually act on them.
Here's something factually correct: sometimes people with extremist or deranged views are locked in prison or mental institutions, or at the very least shunned by society.
So I'll say it again, as another factually and morally correct observation: if all your words and actions had been judged with the same exaggerated and deranged punishment scale you would not be here peddling such disgusting ideas. You would not be here at all. And I now believe you should not be here but presumably @dang is a far more lenient person than I (quite the achievement).
Did you click through the link? Where it uses the word "convicted" in both the headline and the first paragraph? There's nothing arbitrary about the proposal at all.
>Being banned from any flight for being a nuisance is nothing like any of those cases.
Being on the no fly list only stops you from flying commercially. You're free to fly privately. If it's too expensive, well, flying in general is expensive and lots of people never fly in their lives.
>My God man, this is deranged!
Really? It's not uncommon to restrain people who have engaged in physical violence against others.
>You spent 2 lines being completely wrong about the facts trying to contradict my opinion,
Your opinion is predicated on untruth. And my two lines are fully, factually correct.
>and 80% of your comment with a deranged description of how someone should be abused, humiliated, punished, and almost guaranteed killed in case of an accident just for the "privilege" of being on a flight after doing something stupid.
Yes. Engaging in physical violence against innocent people leading to long term anxiety about air travel and sometimes causing permanent disfigurement is just "doing something stupid."
>Surely if such punishments were applied every time you did something stupid we would be having a different conversation now. I know because I've seen too many people with "radical" ideas having a moment of enlightenment when being at the wrong end of them.
I suspect not. As a functioning adult with a developed prefrontal cortex I've never assaulted anyone. It's not me who has the outrageous idea, it's you. Acting as if you can hit someone and then go on about your life as if you never did is ridiculous. On the other hand hundreds of thousands of people every day fly and they don't hit anyone. The vast majority of people in the US manage to go their entire lives without engaging in unprovoked violence against others at all. Unprovoked violence is not normal and that those who engage in it are not permanently separated from civil society is a courtesy, not a right.