The term "I disagree" to what I had replied to was not an inaccurate use of that term.
It was. The statement was "prisoners have rights". You replied "I disagree". Your intention was not conveyed because you failed to use the language accurately. (Now go on a silly rant about semantics. Go on. Be my guest.)
I think you are one of those people that must resort to calling others "ignorant" if they disagree with you.
You know virtually nothing about me. I did not call you ignorant. I observed that your statement would derive either from poor language usage,
or ignorance. We have now established poor language skills as the cause, so ignorance is out for the moment.
Prisoners HAVE rights but they SHOULD NOT; they hurt others, that relinquishes their protection by the law (or, it should)
So if someone is imprisoned for thirty days for refusing to pay local taxes on some principal or other they could be beaten, tortured, starved, etc? Anything is acceptable. They should have no rights whatsoever. It is an interesting world you would like to live in.
Ah, so wanting to punish criminals is primitive; thanks, now at least I know you are probably an ex-convict or something.
... or something. You might wish to explore some of the research relating to prisoners and how their behaviour after release is conditioned by their treatment during their sentence.
Surely no one as rude as yourself could have many friends.
Be assured I am only rude to the deserving, such as yourself, and would most certainly not wish you as a friend, acquaintance, relative, or colleague.