Ngyuen = hero ? (1 Viewer)

[erawamai]

Anyway, Ngyuen isn't a hero. He is a criminal who got what he had coming to him. He had nobody to blame but himself, yet the media has won bleeding hearts over with the good brother/bad brother routine...actually trying to justify Ngyuens actions. Deary me.

I don't think anyone has attempted to justify his actions.

 

[walrusbear]

Evidently you know nothing about Australian culture, identity or why we revere our sporting champions.

Go back to Israel or wherever the hell it is you hail from.


Anyway, Ngyuen isn't a hero. He is a criminal who got what he had coming to him. He had nobody to blame but himself, yet the media has won bleeding hearts over with the good brother/bad brother routine...actually trying to justify Ngyuens actions. Deary me.

who coined that phrase 'bleeding hearts' anyway?
like having compassion is a weakness. such bullshit

 

[katie_tully]

I don't think anyone has attempted to justify his actions

Two weeks before he is to be executed and every newspaper in the country jumps on the "Poor Van, he was just trying to help his brother who had $30,000 in debts", "Van Ngyuens brother's criminal history!", "Van smuggled it to help his brother" bandwagon. You're telling me they only concentrated on this aspect for the last two weeks, coz they had nothing else to report?

 

[erawamai]

Two weeks before he is to be executed and every newspaper in the country jumps on the "Poor Van, he was just trying to help his brother who had $30,000 in debts", "Van Ngyuens brother's criminal history!", "Van smuggled it to help his brother" bandwagon. You're telling me they only concentrated on this aspect for the last two weeks, coz they had nothing else to report?

That's not justifying his actions. That's explaining the motivations of his actions

 

[walrusbear]

That not justifying his actions. That's explaining the motivations of his actions

tully would prefer to condemn crime rather than understand it

 

[The_highwayman]

Or introduce life imprisonment for ALL drug posessions. It's just as plausible.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes, drugs sure do do alot of good for alot of people now don't they?
I would much rather see all drugs made illegal, voluntarily by the will of the population (alcohol, cigarettes...etc etc).

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I believe in freedom of choice. Do you?

No I think it's stupid to allow choice that leads to pain inflicted on yourself or others...

 

[ogmzergrush]

Could you explain this?

I think he means that he'd prefer government intervention to stop people from making choices which obviously aren't in the best interests of anyone.

That said, the argument for legalisation of drugs has a number of components worth consideration, especially given that making them illegal tends to be a fairly inefficient way to combat use and restrict supply.

 

[crazyhomo]

No I think it's stupid to allow choice that leads to pain inflicted on yourself or others...

more people die each year from peanut allergies than ecstacy. we should ban peanuts, they can and do inflict pain and death

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I'm not just talking about deaths / injuries u stupid homo - I am talking about the well-being of society and its citizens. I imagine most drug addicts are not the happiest, most-productive people.

 

[crazyhomo]

you do realise that there are unhappy people who don't use drugs, right?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes ok, but we are talking about unhappiness which has direct routes from drugs / alcohol / gambling...

 

[crazyhomo]

Yes ok, but we are talking about unhappiness which has direct routes from drugs / alcohol / gambling...

if something causes unhappiness, it should be banned

 

[withoutaface]

No I think it's stupid to allow choice that leads to pain inflicted on yourself or others...

In general pain inflicted upon yourself should be your business and your business only. The reason drugs shouldn't be legalised is because they're expensive and hence lead onto flow on crime from addicts, as well as people not properly disposing of their needles.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

In general pain inflicted upon yourself should be your business and your business only. The reason drugs shouldn't be legalised is because they're expensive and hence lead onto flow on crime from addicts, as well as people not properly disposing of their needles.

That's stupid because as Damage Inc pointed out if drugs were legalised they would be cheaper and people wouldn't need to cause crime etc etc...

Drug addicts do not just inflict pain upon themselves, they also inflict it on their families and friends. They often are not suitable for work and thus end up out of work, and we have to pay to support them while they are.

 

[crazyhomo]

That's stupid because as Damage Inc pointed out if drugs were legalised they would be cheaper and people wouldn't need to cause crime etc etc...

Drug addicts do not just inflict pain upon themselves, they also inflict it on their families and friends. They often are not suitable for work and thus end up out of work, and we have to pay to support them while they are.

if recreational drugs were legalised, isn't it more likely that they will be used responsibly, and there will be less people homeless and out of work because they are drugged up all the time? it is a fact that when alcohol prohibition ended during the 1930s in america, both crime and alcohol consumption dropped significantly

 

[Not-That-Bright]

if recreational drugs were legalised, isn't it more likely that they will be used responsibly, and there will be less people homeless and out of work because they are drugged up all the time?

What do you mean? You think when drugs become legalised less people will take up drugs? The comparison between legalising drugs and the temporary experiment in America is not a very good one...

As drugs are highly addictive, it is hard for a person to control their constantly increasing need for drugs... while they are drugged up they cannot perform their work and are probably not able to bond with their family as well as they can sober. You end up in a situation where you have legally allowed people to develop addictions that have put them into a situation where they cannot function as they would otherwise wish they could.

 

[crazyhomo]

'drugs are highly addictive'

ummm...no. some drugs are (heroin). some drugs aren't (ecstasy). you can't simply blanket all drugs like that

and how is comparing legalising drugs to umm....legalising drugs in america not a very good one? prohibition lasted almost ten years, during which, like i said above, crime and alcohol use increased

if recreational drugs were to be legalised, then yes, i do believe that less people will use them, and when they do use them they are more likely to be responsible as there will be more information about the safe use of drugs, and more support available for those that do have a problem

 

[crazyhomo]

While overdose from MDMA itself is rare, many more toxic substances are often sold as ecstasy, and overdose or other adverse reaction to adulterants is not uncommon. MDMA appears to be one of the most commonly adulterated drugs.

Many legal pills such as aspirin, paracetamol (acetaminophen), or even canine heartworm tablets have had the letter E scratched into them and been sold as ecstasy, for enormous profit. (This is a minor plot device in the movie Go.) Such false labeling can have deadly results, as a significant number of people are allergic to aspirin. Paracetamol is fairly hepatotoxic and can cause significant liver damage or death if taken in large doses, as might happen to a person taking four or five tablets in quick succession, thinking the tablets to be ecstasy.