"Why is it that our memory is good enough to retain the least triviality that happens to us, and yet not good enough to recollect how often we have told it to the same person?" - Francois de La Rochefoucauld
I can sympathise.
***
It was about time:
A: [On Anger at ANU honour for Lee] "which restrict democratic expression and academic freedom and implement the death penalty"
I wish they wouldn't trivialise the fight for democratic rights by putting it alongside the death penalty debate. The first is obviously a priority over the latter.
B: Perhaps for you it is, but I suppose that in civilised, advanced, liberal nations the two are often conflated, because the latter is obviously a gross incursion on liberty and human rights, as is the former.
Oh I reread your post and on second thought found it excessively stupid, so here's a longer reply to demolish the brainlessness and lack of compassion.
1) I am anti-death penalty in whatever circumstance. This is the correct view...
[Y]ou might think that abolishing the death penalty is of lesser importance than the struggle for democracy in general, but it is of the same differing degree of importance as, like, wiping your ass and then cleaning your hands after. If you don't do both, then you won't be clean and healthy. Or whatever. I am bad with analogies.
Blah and blah.
A: Sorry, perhaps I have an overly Americanised approach to law. The death penalty issue is still contested; political rights not so much. Bash Singapore for lack of its political freedoms. But why bash it for the death penalty while it is still a common occurrence in the United States.
C: With all due respect, I fail to see how the death penalty is any more barbaric than life imprisonment. Perhaps you are of the view that drug traffickers and murderers should be subject to corrective, reformative treatment in a friendly, hospitable environment so that they can become useful members of society.
I also fail to understand how applying the death penalty to "DRUG TRAFFICKERS" is considered "indiscriminate". But I suppose it's hard to see how drugs can really destroy families sitting so far up in an ivory tower and comfortably typing out a reply in Gmail.
B: Oh yah. I reread this post and it fucking pisses me off... I just fail to see how you could think that I LIVE IN AN IVORY TOWER because I THINK THAT PUTTING POOR AND DESPERATE PEOPLE TO DEATH IS WRONG. Oh yeah and this in no way disrupts the profits of the Myanmese or what-have-you drug lords, who are still in THEIR ivory tower because they didn't have the misfortune of not being able to PAY SOMEONE ELSE TO TAKE THE FALL FOR THEM.
C: Sorry for the lack of a reply, I had no access to a PC this weekend :/
A few quick bites:
1. With regards to "corrective reformative treatment", yes it was meant to be sarcasm.
2. While it's true that we don't execute casino owners and alcohol peddlers, that's not really my concern since neither gambling nor selling of alcohol is a crime in singapore. Yes they do destroy lives and families as well but our wonderful govt has chosen not to criminalise such acts.
3. Again, why always post nice, heartwarming anecdotes about these "young, innocent" drug traffickers? If somebody gives you a bag of herbs and offers you $10,000 to take them to another country, I hardly think that any rational human being would not at least stop to consider why.
4. Yes I know the executed ones are the poor runners and not the fat rich drug lords, but the fight on drugs has to start somewhere. Some deterrence is better than no deterrence, no?
B: Hello there. Your points are like so dumb. You haven't responded to any of the salient points that the intelligent and thinking people here have brought up. The discussion ends here because you don't even bother to string together a comeback. The argument went like this: You said A. I said A is wrong, because B. You say A again. Hello. Hello. Anybody home.
D:
> You haven't responded to any of the salient
> points that the intelligent and thinking people here have brought up.
i know you're smart and all, but this is just not necessary. nuff said.
B: no. this C character should be subject to ridicule for his views. it is not a personal attack - it is an attack of his arguments, which, as i have pointed out, DO NOT RESPOND TO ANY OF THE POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP and furthermore are very faux-witty. but his style is another issue.
there is a correct view in this circumstance: the death penalty for drug trafficking is repugnant. any sane person with a brain and a conscience would think so. but
apparently this is not self-evident.
the horse has been flogged because we've been through this a billion times. the
death penalty is morally questionable. but to apply the death penalty to drug
trafficking is unequivocally wrong. there is no question there.
C: B:
If you could take that stick that's shoved far up your ass for a moment, you'd realise there is no right or wrong, but oh the GREAT BITEME-MEOW is ALWAYS RIGHT. Who are you to say that the "correct view" is that the death penalty for drug trafficking is repugnant? Are you suddenly some great judge of rights and wrongs? Evidently, NOT thinking the same way as you is reason to be an "insane person without a brain and conscience". Get off your high moral horse and get your head out of the clouds thanks. Kids like you have who have never been into the real world and are living under your parents' wings are always very good at spouting moralities and truisms. You've got so much angst and vitriol in you, you make Gabriel look like Jesus Christ.
As a matter of fact, I do not try to respond to YOUR points simply because you are the kind of person who can't seem to be able to take in any view other than your own, so to even respond to you would be like trying to squeeze intellect from a rock. But please, go on trying to "ridicule" me if it makes you any more secure in your little hole.
Me: Hear, hear.
Though I would like to protest the slanderous allegation that I have a lot of angst and vitriol.