Sean Hannity offers to be waterboarded for charity

[Cicero]

And if, as appears to be the actual case, Hannity backs out of his offer like the pusillanimous hypocrite that he is, even though he would be doing it, not "for kicks", but to raise $1000 per second for charity, what does that say about waterboarding?

Hannity was a 'pusillanimous hypocrite" long before the other "pusillanimous hypocrite" dared to him to be waterboarded.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Hannity was a 'pusillanimous hypocrite" long before the other "pusillanimous hypocrite" dared to him to be waterboarded.

This non sequitur does not constitute an answer to my question.

 

[NotJesus]

That can be arranged...

[Cornholio]Are you threatening me?[/Cornholio]

I'd rather be waterboarded than use a Fighting Blue Hen as my avatar!

I lost a bet. What's your excuse?

 

[maddog]

[Cornholio]Are you threatening me?[/Cornholio]

It was actually more of an offer than a threat!

I lost a bet. What's your excuse?

I listen to all sides -- even the s on both sides -- so that my opinion can be well-informed. To the extent possible. For my limited brainpower.

When convenient to my listening times and stations, I've also listened to Randi Rhodes and Stephanie Miller, Rush Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham.

I wouldn't even MAKE a bet involving the Blue Hens as my avatar. Fear The Turtle, baby!!!


However, I do appear to have been mistaken with what I posited about Sean Hannity. For what it's worth, I tried calling in to ask him about it, but couldn't get through.

 

[linusrichard]

This non sequitur does not constitute an answer to my question.

It's almost like he doesn't want to answer the question.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Is Cicero really trying to convince people that water-boarding is illegal in all cases, even if the person being water-boarded volunteered for it without any coercion? I mean, I read his posts, but is he sincere?

Cicero, do you think the B&D lifestyle is illegal as well, since handcuffing people, gagging them and whipping them is illegal if it's non-consentual?

I'm going to have to take a wild guess and say that you are not a lawyer, nor to you have any experience with the legal system.

Also, Cicero, legalities aside.......... should parents be allowed to water-board their children?

 

[linusrichard]

The difference between KSM and Hitchens or Hannity, is that neither of them has any info to reveal.

I missed this the first time through. I believe I agree with this beautiful little sentence, especially as applied to Hannity.

 

[Upchurch]

I mean, I read his posts, but is he sincere?

Tough question. I'm sure he thinks he is correct about the over all topic. I suspect that the need to prove his position justifies any means necessary to convince people he is correct.

 

[Cicero]

Cicero, do you think the B&D lifestyle is illegal as well, since handcuffing people, gagging them and whipping them is illegal if it's non-consentual?

http://www.smartsextalk.com/PDF/0711_bondage.pdf

"Now the question is: Since Exley consented to the sex play, can LeBlanc be held responsible for his death? Exley's family is suing LeBlanc's estate for unspecified damages, claiming wrongful death. Many bondage enthusiasts are watching the case closely, seeing it as a lesson in where to draw the line of responsibility on consensual but dangerous sex."

 

[332nd]

http://www.smartsextalk.com/PDF/0711_bondage.pdf

"Now the question is: Since Exley consented to the sex play, can LeBlanc be held responsible for his death? Exley's family is suing LeBlanc's estate for unspecified damages, claiming wrongful death. Many bondage enthusiasts are watching the case closely, seeing it as a lesson in where to draw the line of responsibility on consensual but dangerous sex."

So your answer is yes?

 

[Cicero]

So your answer is yes?

That is for the jury in the civil suit to decide.

 

[Upchurch]

That is for the jury in the civil suit to decide.

The jury decides your opinion?

Freaky.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

In the UK:

The Law Of Assault
In law, you cannot, as a rule, consent to an assault. There are exceptions. For example, you can consent to a medical practitioner touching and possibly injuring your body; you can consent to an opponent hitting or injuring you in sports such as rugby or boxing; you can consent to tattoos or piercings if they are for ornamental purposes. You can also use consent as a defence against a charge of what is called Common Assault. This is an assault which causes no significant injury. top of page

The Judgement
The Law Lords ruled that SM activity provides no exception to the rule that consent is no defence to charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm or causing grievous bodily harm. These are defined as activities which cause injuries of a lasting nature. Bruises or cuts could be considered lasting injuries by a court, even if they heal up completely and that takes a short period of time. Grievous bodily harm covers more serious injury and maiming. Judge Rant introduced some new terms to define what he considered to be lawful and unlawful bodily harm. Judge Rant decreed that bodily harm applied or received during sexual activities was lawful if the pain it caused was "just momentary" and "so slight that it can be discounted". His judgement applies also to bodily marks such as those produced by beatings or bondage. These too, according to him, must not be of a lasting nature. In essence, Judge Rant decided that any injury, pain or mark that was more than trifling and momentary was illegal and would be considered an assault under the law.

http://www.spannertrust.org/documents/spannerhistory.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Spanner

 

[thaiboxerken]

That is for the jury in the civil suit to decide.

Thus proving that you really don't like to answer questions directly because you know that you're wrong. You know, Cicero, you really can't trick people into agreeing with you. Why don't you stop trying? Why don't you try to actually have an honest discussion with people for a change?

 

[Cicero]

The jury decides your opinion?

Freaky.

In the case I cited I have no opinion. I provided it because thaiboxerken is blissfully unaware that mutual consent does not guarantee immunity from criminal prosecution and, or, civil action.

 

[332nd]

That is for the jury in the civil suit to decide.

So you don't want to answer the question. Ok.

 

[Upchurch]

In the case I cited I have no opinion. I provided it because thaiboxerken is blissfully unaware that mutual consent does not guarantee immunity from criminal prosecution and, or, civil action.

How does that case show that? It seems to me that LeBlanc is being sued because of Exley death, not he participated in bondage and whatnot.

thaiboxerken was asking if, by your torture standard, B&D was illegal because it is illegal to do those things without consent. I'm fairly sure Exley did not consent to being smothered to death.

eta: Woops. Cicero is setting up another dodge and I'm helping. Disregard.

 

[Cicero]

How does that case show that? It seems to me that LeBlanc is being sued because of Exley death, not he participated in bondage and whatnot.

thaiboxerken was asking if, by your torture standard, B&D was illegal because it is illegal to do those things without consent. I'm fairly sure Exley did not consent to being smothered to death.

eta: Woops. Cicero is setting up another dodge and I'm helping. Disregard.

I didn't write:

"Many bondage enthusiasts are watching the case closely, seeing it as a lesson in where to draw the line of responsibility on consensual but dangerous sex."

So it is definitely about "bondage and whatnot" for some.

 

[Cleon]

Hmmm.... first hour nearly over, and I haven't heard Hannity say one word about it. I may have to admit to being wrong.

Wellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll?

 

[thaiboxerken]

In the case I cited I have no opinion. I provided it because thaiboxerken is blissfully unaware that mutual consent does not guarantee immunity from criminal prosecution and, or, civil action.

Strawman. Thanks for trying though. Say, why haven't you called in law-enforcement to arrest the people at SERE? You seem to think what they're doing is illegal. Why not be a good citizen and blow the whistle?