I've found that people use the "stop putting words in my mouth" line when someone follows their words to a logical conclusion. This leads me to believe that the sentence really means "quit pointing out flaws in my reasoning."
I guess you could read the conversation before commenting. Here, I'll make it easy for you: I said "35 isn't even half a lifetime... he'll be about 60 when he gets out." and clarky07 said "missing out on 25-60 is totally reasonable. nothing important happens during those years anyways." which is not the same thing as what I said. See? clarky07 tried to make it sound like I said that 35 years was no big deal, but I didn't say that.
I bet your use of passive-aggressive condescension wins all your arguments for you, and wins you the respect of all your peers.
Now, if you said that 35 isn't half a lifetime, and that he'll be about 60 when he gets out, how doesn't that minimize the focus on the effect those 35 years of incarceration actually have on Manning? Were you just so insensitive an engineer that you felt the cold, literal correction was somehow benefiting the conversation?
Your other comment said I wasn't being logical enough. Now I'm being too logical? I didn't think it was very passive either. That leaves... respect of my peers. OK, I have a lot of time on my hands so I'm game:
I think that exaggeration of the effect of Manning's leaks is what led to the overly harsh sentence in the first place. The least we could do in discussing it is not make the same mistake.
I think Manning's sentence is much too long. But at the same time, I don't think misrepresenting how harsh it is does any side of the argument any good. I'm sensitive enough to realize that if we want reasonable sentences, we will have to be honest about how harsh a sentence really is. I can also predict that critics will write us off as irrational or whiny if we make a habit of overreacting every time something happens we don't like.
I'm not insensitive. On the contrary, I can imagine much worse sentences that could have been handed down, up to and including capital punishment for treason. As crushing as the final sentence must be to Manning and those near him, I can also understand the coping mechanisms they will resort to to deal with it. One of those is that the sentence is not as bad as it could have been.
>clarky07 tried to make it sound like I said that 35 years was no big deal, but I didn't say that.
>35 isn't even half a lifetime. He was born in 1987 (geez, he's younger than I am)
How is this not minimizing the severity again? At the very least it's more than half his remaining lifetime, and possibly all of his remaining lifetime. He also gets to miss out on pretty much any chance at having a family. His only friends will be other convicts. I hope he at least manages to get out on parole, but there is certainly a chance he doesn't.
Calling 35 years "a lifetime" is exaggerating. Calling 35 years less than half a lifetime is accurate, not minimizing. "Half his remaining lifetime" is probably true, and that's also a valid way to look at it. But it doesn't really contradict what I said, because what I said is true. ("Possibly all of his remaining lifetime" is incredibly cynical, but technically true.)
First off, it's not that cynical. Plenty of people die before the age of 60. Male life expectancy is 76, so 35 years is 70% of expected remaining.
Also, the point I was originally making, is that for most people the quality of life between 25-60 is far higher than the quality of life from 60-95. Even if he does happen to live to 95 and it's "only half", most people are going to enjoy age 35 more than they are going to enjoy age 95.
