h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>Post 208 - Honest Tony
Some old people would be happy to give up living but society will not let them.<<

I saw your willingness to sign other people's death warrants to protect our fragile economy and scarce resources. I wanted to know whether you'd be so eager to be the first to go.

Clearly not. So its good enough for other folk but not for you eh?

AB, you know HonestIago was being ironic. But you don´t want to let any bit of reasoning challenge your fixed ideas.

You come here doing ad hominem attacks instead of answering, commenting ideas and facts from reality, this reality, not your apocalliptic reality that can be saved only by killing or locking up people for ever.
YOu call us fanatics, imply that we are neglecting our work, etc. That´s not the way to have a proper discussion, don´t you think so?

Hi Voice,

>In my street there is a gang of children aged from about 8 to 18 and they terrorise me my neighbours and friends, The police are powerless and ASBos don't seem to make a difference. ~If the police won't act then vigilantes will.

So your solution to gang violence is... more gangs?


>Who gets to define "decent people"? You?
>Seen this before, attempt to claim moral high ground by insisting "you" think the same as "decent" people so every other opinion comes from indecent perspective, or "subhuman" in your eyes eh?
>The majority of "decent" people in Britain would have cared less if Venables had been hung on 18th Birthday.

(a) you've just done exactly what you accused Ed of, and (b) are you really saying that decent people support 8 years on death row followed by execution without any concerns at all?


>I have no children any more. If he had lived to murder as Venables did< I would have strangled him myself.

So speaks the voice of decency.


>Surely this shows there is no correlation between the death penalty and crime?

Yes, that sounds likely. What was your rationale for the death penalty again? Incidentally, it's statistically invalid to go looking for data sub-sets (such as 'youth murders per capita') to support your case when the original data ('murders per capita') does not.


>The death penalty itself is 100% effective with a 0% re-offending rate.

Ed has already given you 20 cases where the death penalty would have been ineffective for the simple reason that the wrong people were convicted. Those nationmaster.com statistics could easily be used to find tens of thousands of cases where the death penalty was ineffective as a deterrant.


>To protect and enhance a species of animal culling is a tried and tested man made procedure.

So is eating other species; that doesn't make it moral when applied to humans. Are you really prepared to argue for the most extreme form of eugenics? Would you be prepared to face a eugenic court where you might be executed for stating your willingness to kill your own children (as quoted above)?


>this shows there is no correlation between the death penalty and crime [...] No doubt it also has some effect as a deterrent.

I can see your mind is not so small as to be concerned with trifles like consistancy.


>can be said without fear of contradiction is that Jon Venables is living proof that present rehabilitation attempts fail and do little or nothing to deter.

Bilge. Jon Venables is living proof that present rehabilitation attempts are not infalliable. In no way does he show that they always fail, and he tells us nothing about their deterrent effects.

Gif

Hi AB,

>Neurologists are discovering more and more about how the brain works

And this justifies eugenics how?

Gif

Hi Ed,

>supervised a a certain A Eichmann

That made me smile and think:

i carry zyklon b with me(i carry it in
my briefcase)i am never without it(anywhere
i go you die,my untermenschen...

- aa eichmann

Gif

Post 209 - That man again.
Once again way over the top.
As you say I am not advocating anything.
I give you a theme and you paint your own picture.
I am dismayed that you seem determined to portray every theme as a crime against humanity.
On a personal level, I have never knowingly done anything to hurt or damage any member of society,
I have a clean driving license and no police record.

PS. Everything today is related in one way or another to £.s.d
How much emphasis you place on this is your concern.

AB (ITMA!):
>>>To protect and enhance a species of animal culling is a tried and tested man made procedure.


So is eating other species; that doesn't make it moral when applied to humans.

Now there's an idea. Criminals could be eaten.

Serious question: Does this sound repugnant? If so...why?

Post 211 HonestTony
I thin that you will find that todays man (Ed to you) said that he would 'not'

Post 211 HonestTony
I think that you will find that the man of the day (Ed to you) said that he would 'not' mourn.
Quote
This rather defeats any point you were trying to make and tends to show that as far as 'Ed' is concerned your sympathies are wrongly placed in this instance.

Getting my knickers in a twist. Must take a break.

I think you'll just have to excuse HTony for a typo there, AB. It's clear enough from the context what he meant. He said there are several people whose deaths he too wouldn't morns.

btw...your previous post is your most cogent so far. Keep it up.

Now I'm at it (as usual)!

morns -> mourn.

>>I think that you will find that the man of the day (Ed to you) said that he would 'not' mourn.
Quote
This rather defeats any point you were trying to make and tends to show that as far as 'Ed' is concerned your sympathies are wrongly placed in this instance.<<

That's right old chap, rather than making a substantive reply to my posts, attack what was obviously a typo.

Shall I take that to mean you don't have a substantive response to what I said?

>>Everything today is related in one way or another to £.s.d
How much emphasis you place on this is your concern.<<

For you. Not all of us are so focused on it.

I think that if it was myself (i hope to God it never would be) that i would want to know what he was back inside for. I think any parent would. I think its terrible that this information is being with-held from the public also. I am the same age as the Bulger killers and so was aware when this happened and find it amazing that there is all the talk of them not knowing right from wrong. I like i said was there age and i knew at that age (the same age as them) that you do not go around committing such horrific crimes. I digress but another thing that bothered me was there changed identities. What if they'd come to live in my area? What if myself or someone else i know had gotten involved with them? We would never have known and couldve ended up in an awful situation. Its horrendous that this happened in the first place, let alone that its all come to the surface again for poor James mother.

Post 206 our man putting words in my mouth again.
If you didn't intend to have two identities my logical conclusion would be that you have two identities because you failed to register the first.
Most of your presumptions have lead to all manner of misunderstanding.
Satirising things to their logical conclusion is what you should do with your own own views not post presumptive conclusions that you have drawn from mine. The logical conclusion from my post should be if man has established that culling is advantageous to specific animal species could culling of humans be of advantage to the human race. I don't remember anywhere saying you 'should' cull humans in anyway shape or form.
All I believe is that criminals should be appropriately punished.
For the time being I shall read on.

The previous post was a reply to post 216 not 206.
Sorry

The previous post was a reply to post 216 not 206.
Sorry Maria del Mar I missed you out.
I'll have a look at what you say.

Hi AB,

Leaping to the defence of poor, defenceless Ed: he posted as Ed for many years (hence my continuing to call him Ed). The old ID got lost during the recent switch-over to the new BBC system that's brought us the advantages of shorter user names and... erm... mmm.

And satire is a perfectly acceptable means of exposing poorly thought-through views. Ed took the principle you stated - that culling criminals was justified because they are a drain on resources - and applied the same principle to another situation. If you don't agree with his conclusions, perhaps there is something wrong with the principle?

Without going back to check your exact wording, you certainly left me with the impression you had proposed the culling of criminals. If that's not what you meant, could you explain what you did mean?

Gif