- Banned
- #101
How bout you answer my question?
Do you think it's reasonable to kill people just because they are a drug addict?
Should we euthenase drink drivers too?
Who else shall we kill? Where is the line drawn?
Please answers these questions.
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 9 - Indigenous Round - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Legalising heroin...
- Thread starter dr nick
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Do you think it's reasonable to kill people just because they are a drug addict?
Should we euthenase drink drivers too?
Who else shall we kill? Where is the line drawn?
Please answers these questions.
Rottweilers, along with pit bulls, are generally considered a ' dangerous' breed of dog and most States have legislation effecting tight restriction on their breeding and being kept in urban areas. Next step from this is banning the breed. I believe there is one suburban council in Melbourne, Hobson's Bay if my memory serves me correctly, where pit bulls must be desexed otherwise they will be banned by the municipality. The point of this post was to illustrate that society has the foolish attitude that the dog is the problem rather than the owner, and this was connected to the heroin thread by means of the same attitiude.. i e society believes the drug is the problem, not the user. It's a very dangerous attitude and will do nothing to solve the problem, only make it worse.
Simply, I believe that heroin addiction leads to violence in most cases. Having lived in an area of melbourne for many years that has an epidemic of heroin abuse> violence > burglaries / home invasions, I think the runs are on the board to back up that belief. Check crime stats for areas with large proportions of heroin users and those without.
Jim Boy, I wouldn't waste your time trying to present an alternative opinion to this dropkick. In his or her warped view of the world, anyone who advocates discipline or upholding moral values is bitter, has no friends, and is a serial killer waiting to happen. Half a dozen of us have been so branded already, you're on the way to becoming the next.
- Banned
- #105
How many times have we seen the Mum say, "it was a lovely family dog. We didn't ever think it would attack our little Billy."
Most people know it is the user, but we can't just go kill them because it is their fault.
Point one: How many yobbos with tatts , shaved heads and bad attitudes do you see walking pitbulls, Staffys and rottweilers around your suburb? Now count the number you see walking silky terriers, poodles, chihuahas and dachshunds. There's your dog attack problem, right there.
Point two: The same applies to drink drivers then. A lot of them are alcoholics, so why should we demonise them? ( And get a lot of ' out for a meal with the wife / girlfriend and had a glass of wine too many ' innocent types caught up and branded ' bloody idiots' in the process )
The big issue I have with people like you is that you want your cake, and to be able to eat it as well. You can't have it both ways.
so, from this post, i take it you are all for freeely available guns?
After all, it is the user, not the gun that is the problem.
Correct, it is the user, not the gun. This is why, along with dog ownership, I advocate strict professional testing of personality and mental state prior to issuing a licence for owning a dog or a gun, and much stricter controls on the illegal gun trade would make this plausible. Which would be possible if Governments didn't deploy three quarters of their police forces on revenue raising duties.
- Banned
- #109
This is just champagne comedy.
One more thing: What is it that these yobbos do to make these dogs violent. Yes I know some 'blood' the dog, but that is a minority in suburban areas. You don't think that these dogs just have natural killer instinct?
Over the years, I've known over a hundred of people who have been done for drink driving. Only two were alcoholics.
Well not many in my suburb, but yes, they certainly exist. They do contribute to the problem, but there are respectable families who keep these dogs (no tatts, no mullets, no egos) and they still attack. Therefore, the most dangerous ingredient of the situation is most likely the dog.
So how do you explain the many situations where the dog owner wasn't a yobbo and it attacked a small child? Did a yobbo with tatts break in in the middle of the night and train the dog to have an attitude and be hard as nails? Since the yoobo was breaking in, he was probably a junkie too, right?
One more thing: What is it that these yobbos do to make these dogs violent. Yes I know some 'blood' the dog, but that is a minority in suburban areas. You don't think that these dogs just have natural killer instinct?
A lot of alcohols will drink drive, but most drink drivers aren't alcoholics. It seems you let your morals get in the way of your limited logic.
Over the years, I've known over a hundred of people who have been done for drink driving. Only two were alcoholics.
They're are two separate issues. Like comparing apples to oranges.
however, if you look at the statistics, whenever guns are freely available, the crime rate skyrockets.
By your earlier argument, you want all heroin users euthanased because they are scum who cause the crime rate to rise.
the same goes for freely available guns in society.
So, you are for one thing, and against another.
Where is your consistency?
It is champagne comedy in your view for the simple fact you have a very dangerous lassez faire ( look it up ) attitude that is far too prevalent in modern society. Your type turn a blind eye to the truth, because you're too scared to rattle the glass jaw sensitivities of certain sectors of society.
Point 1: In almost every single dog attack news item I have seen, both here and when living in Melbourne, the dog owners were ferals. The area I live in here, one which is home to mainly professionals and academics, sees predominantly 'harmless' breeds such as labradors, pointers, dalmations etc. Narrow minded logic in your view no doubt, but the fact is there. Where there are ferals, there are 'tough' dogs. It's an image thing.
Point 2: If kids grow up with dogs, and are trained how to handle them by RESPONSIBLE PARENTS ( another group of people seemingly non existent these days ) these attacks don't happen.
Point 3: The concept was identical. Why demonise someone for their choices? It obviously went over your head.
Drink drivers don't bash pensioners in their own homes for $10 for their next bottle of wine either
The only reason statistics show most DUI's are not alcoholics are that they laws are designed in such a way that unintentional offenders and bottom of the scale offenders are the ones who will always get nabbed, thus skewing the stats. Alcoholics are crafty, and know how to avoid the traps.
Point 4: There are no separate issues. The solitary issue in this thread is behaviour and its' effect on society. If you're going to defend people's right to choose what behaviours they exhibit and not be persecuted, be consistent about it.
So have we reached the point where you call me a serial killer in waiting yet?
Read the post again. I didn't advocate free availability at all. Then again, as I have been warned about and observed personally, you too will write me off as a serial killer in waiting, so I don't really see the point in attemting a reasoned debate with you.
even limited availability does the same.
Your "ideas" for controling the illegal flow of guns/heroin have been so far, non-existant.
Now, if you think that euthanasing heroin addicts is the way to go, then i wouldnt call you a serial killer in waiting. I would call you a person who has very small grasp on the actual problem.
And you have been "warned" eh?
by whom? over what?
Like I said earlier in the thread, go ask any 80 year old pensioner whether my views or the view that legalisation or the current ' kid glove' approach that society takes to junkies is more appropriate. I will stake both my houses on the result.
I have been warned by quite a few posters in PMs about yourself and several other 'contributors' to these boards and your antagonistic, attack anyone who presents an alternative opinion attitudes. And in this thread, those warnings have proven correct.
let me however ignore the warnings and pose a question to you purely out of curiosity: the kid glove approach your type advocates has destroyed society in less than 30 years. If harsh discipline and zero tolerance isn't the answer, then what is?? Let's see if you can present a valid argument without attacking the opponent's view. Please enlighten me.
irrelevent. Ask any 80 year old about modern views on sexuality, and they would be horrified. Your point doesnt prove anything.
i only "attack" people who make obviously stupid or false claims. If they dont like my style of post, let them talk to me about it.
The answer lies in education. Zero tolerence has never worked in any society (prohibition in the USA for instance)
Education is definately the answer. If you told people that a heroin addict ends up vomiting his/her own fecal mater, and the degredations that a heroin junkie will fall to get their hits, then you would find a decrease I feel.
But it all lies in our education system. You will never eradicate these problem. they have been around as long as mankind has, so i fail to see how your comment of "the last 30 years" fits into the debate.
- Banned
- #116
You thought you were so smart coming up with that word, didn't you. Firstly, you've spelt it wrong. Secondly, how do you work that out? I want dangerous dog breeds banned from suburbia, gun restrictions, and heroin to be illegal.
Err, no. I believe the junkies are at fault if they commit crime, and the users of guns at fault if a crime is committed. But I don't believe we can go kill people just because they are junkies.
I agree with the generalisation - and it is just that - a generalisation. But I don't believe the reason the dogs attack are necessarily because of the owners.
or are you saying that ferals like to keep these dogs, so therefore they should be put down rather than the dogs?
Wrong.
Seems it has gone over my head. You said heroing addicts should be euthenased because of their choice to take drugs?
No but they kill innocent people on the roads.
You're just talking complete shyt.
If junkies commit a violent crime, they get tried, convicted, and jailed.
If drink drivers get caught, they face punishment by the courts.
They get penalised for their actions. Now given that owning vicious dog breeds is legal, what actions do these owners commit to warrant being punished?
Is simply being a feral punishable by law?
As expected, poor quality response.
Point 1: Diverting the issue. Sexuality issues do not result in, or make, pensioners soft targets not do they affect the safety of pensioners in society.
Point 2: You regularly attack posters who present an alternative opinion, like the clown below does.
Point3 : Education is a soft option and doesn't work. The State Government of victoria for example, spent millions trying to educate me , when I lived there, tha doing 3kmh over the speed limit is dangerous. Being an educated, intelligent person, I know this is complete garbage.The only way i would slow down is by repeatedly being fined. So education doesn't work if the mindset of the individual doesn't want it to. Enforcement , like in the speeding issue, is the only way to modify behaviour.
now who is "attacking"??
but sexuality will still get a thumbs down from the 80 year old. I used this to show you how irrelevent you example was
as i said, you wont eradicate every instance of the problem. There are always those people who are too stupid to head the warnings.
If you think enforcement does this, then why is there crime anywhere??
Point 1: The fact you want dangerous dogs banned in suburia proves my point. You are a softkok. Why not kick the ferals up the arse and keep their anti social behaviour in check? Oh, that's right, mustn't discriminate now, must we?
Point 2:
What other use is there for junkies? They cannot ever be reformed. Like the dangerous dogs you despise, one attack, and they get the green needle. Why should we euthanase dangerous dogs? Why not retrain them? Same principle. Again, trying to have your cake and eat it.
Point 3: As in point 3, ferals should be kept in check, and as in an earlier post, they should have suitability assessed in order to have a licence for owning dogs, and if found to be unstable, restricted to owning certain ' harmless ' breeds.
Point 4: Not talking shyte at all, you, as usual, are avoiding the issue.
Most drink drivers hit trees anyway, not kill innocent people.
Point 5: Junkies get tried and jailed? Frogshyte. They get slapped on the wrist and given a community order, thanks to some bleeding heart lawyer whining about their disadvantaged childhood and other sob stories, soft magistrates too scared to take a tough line, and a society with the idiotic attitude that these scum are victims. The law immediately deems drink drivers ' bloody idiots'. What a complete and utter contradiction of terms. s for ferals / dangerous dogs, its all above. Anyone who ever chooses to face facts will see that ferals own 'tough' dogs to suppport their tough image and enhance their intimidation of others. Get your head out of your arse.
because the current level of enforcement for violent crime is miserably soft and hopelessly inadequate. Simple.
unfortunately even places like singapore have crime....
and they have some of the harshest law enforcement measures on the planet.
So, seems to me that it doesnt work.
you will never get rid of crime, it is simple
you can lessen it, and that will occur through the correct education of people.
And is that happening? No. Crime is increasing exponentally because there is no deterrent and because society is being brainwashed to treat it as inevitable and something that can't be fixed, and brainwashed to be cowards and avoid the harsh facts. If capital punishment was reintroduced for ANY violent act, rape, assualt, whatever, you'd soon see a massive reduction in violent crime, but as our modern Governments are too limp wristed to introduce it, we;ll never find out who is right and who is wrong, will we? We'd best just keep on fitting elaborate and expensive security devices to our homes and praying it doesn't happen to us.
- Banned
- #123
Please explain how feral's social behaviour makes dogs attack? This isn't the first time I have asked you.
All though the facts are that most don't, some do. And we can't deny these people, or the whole lot of them the opportunity to reform.
1. I'm not saying euthenase all these dogs. I'm saying ban them.
2. Dogs and humans are different things. it's ok by me to euthenase a dog who has attacked but not a human. Just an opinion.
3. You can retrain a dog that has attacked. Once they taste blood, that's it, they are unstable. Fact.
4. A human can be retrained because we are more intelligent than dogs.
How do you explain the many times that these dogs that have attacked have come from good families?
But they are still responsible for innocent lives. You accuse me of having my cake?
I never said this. I said junkies who commit violent crime. get it right.
You have a point, but only that drug addiction is no excuse for actions. Often, criminals get a lighter sentence if they are junkies (which I don't agree with), but to suggest they always get a slap on the wrist is absurd.
Because they are. They are putting other lives at risk. Very selfish. But by your logic, these people should be euthenased.
True, but you haven't explained how this makes these dogs attack innocent victims. This is the third time I have asked.
- Banned
- #124
It can't be fixed and you are an idiot if you think otherwise.
So why doesn't it work in America? Wy doesn't it work in other places who have capital punishment or severe punishment such as cutting off hands, stoning etc?
We already know (we doesn't include you though). We know because other countries have tried it and it doesn't work well enough to warrant introducing it.
You are really a lost cause. It's people like you who are the reason pensioners are barricaded in their own homes in fear, young single women fear social activities because of sexual harassment and drink spiking, etc, and society is in a general state of disarray. Your posts in this thread suggest you are quite happy to allow one of the most dangerous groups in society to continue unabated with their ILLEGAL activity and wreak havoc on society all because you ,like our politicians and the number of the population they have brainwashed with their mamby pamby milksop attitude, are too cowardly to face up to the reality and act. Then, in direct contradiction, you espouse tough action against drink drivers ( minor offence ) and dangerous dogs. I note you live in Sydney, I'm guessing ( and if I'm wrong, I'll accept correction ) you are in Potts Point or Bondi or one of the other upmarket trendy suburbs where you are sheltered from bogans and ferals and life's harsh realities ,like me here in Fullarton in Adelaide. However, unlike you, I don't pretend what happens in the Elizabeths or Lonsdales of this world doesn't happen. You need a wake up call mate, and fast. Perhaps a visit to Cabramatta or Blacktown ( Again apologies if these are bad examples, my Sydney geography is abysmal ) might snap you out of your misguided huggy feely Utopian ideology.
