Boycott Singapore - Van's unfair sentance

[endlesseulogy]

^^^ well not really, since sending someone to the moon seems rather amoral to me, in comparison with a death sentence which is a totally morally loaded subject!

i do agree with the idea that we should be able to voice dissent against anything though - a border or an amount of kilometres or whatever does not relieve us of our ethics or rights as a human.

^^ Cool

I guess its each to his own, but i definatly think there are moral issues relating to the moon landing. Issues unrelating to science . Im talking about all that "one small step for man" jazz. That was supposed to signify the evolution of man into a new a new chapter of being. When you look at that and compare it to Van's case, you will see what i mean

 

[Duckboy]

PEOPLE SHOULDNT DIE FOR BEING STUPID.. GET IT??

Darwinism.
Natural selection.


Whatever. Fact is, you know the rules. You get caught trafficking drugs in some countries, you die.
You get caught trafficking drugs in Australia you get a fine and/or you do some time out of public circulation.
Everyone knows the risks and consequences.



It may sound harsh, but i for one don't feel an obligation to feel sympathetic.
Empathetic, yes... but not sympathetic.
It's unfortunate.
But also think of the consequences if he didn't get caught.

 

[endlesseulogy]

^^ Man made laws have absolutly nothing to do with natural selection im afraid. Fair enough if you think they do, but i think its like comparing apples with grapes.




Also, as ive mentioned before in my other post, i find this whole, "well, he knew the consequences" attitude pretty unconstructive and unfortunate. Would you be saying the same thing if you yourself or your family members or best mates were on the gallows? Ofcourse he knew the consequences, and he made a mistake and from what we hear of him from the legal team he has been very very co-operative with law inforcement agencies all around the world.

But also think of the consequences if he didn't get caught.

If he didnt get caught 1000s of Sydneysiders would have gotten their fix, just as they have been doing for decades, just as they will for decades to come, notmatter how many people get caught or succeeed in importing heroin, there will ALWAYS be a steady supply. Thats just simple economics, supply and demand. The heroin problem wont go away until the government wakes up and realises that its here to stay and that a more pro-active and just approach is the only thing that will reduce the social impact of this drug.

 

[Duckboy]

^ Singapore has also been catching drug traffickers and sentencing them for decades, just as they will for decades to come. Wheels will keep turning, life goes on.

Apples to grapes?
Since when has "Dying for being stupid" has anything to do with man made laws??
Laws aren't getting Van killed. The laws were there long before he was.
That's like saying a car killed a driver if he was to have an accident. (since you like using analogies)
Hemlock - do you blame the poison for existing, or the person who knowingly drinks it?

One can't blame the external environment for the outcome.

 

[endlesseulogy]

^ Singapore has also been catching drug traffickers and sentencing them for decades, just as they will for decades to come. Wheels will keep turning, life goes on.

Oh definatly. This is when an individual must make a conscious choice. You can sit there are say this for cosmic eternity if you feel its not important to you, or you can do something about it and protest. I choose to protest because the fact of the matter is, i know that Van is not only a "condomed prisoner", but that he is a brother, a son, a friend to people who love and care for him very much and I think its unjust and that drug laws are corrupt and were put together with hardly any thought. He dosnt deserve to be murdured, opps im sorry, executed this way.

I wonder what the reaction of the Australian public would have been if he had blond hair and blue eyes and female?

Dying for being stupid does have a relation to the law that is putting him to death. The law and the penelty go hand in hand because they are part of the same process. You cant have a penalty without a law just as you cant have a law without a penalty. Just like you cant have a car crash without a car.

 

[Duckboy]

Yes, but i am saying that the law in this case was the environment, an environment that Van entered into, knowing the risks and dangers of that environment.

A decision was made knowing those facts.
Possibly a very poor decision, since it will undoubtedly cost him his life.

Ethnicity? I hate to generalise, but for many i think all they will see is an asian man being charged in an asian country, and their thoughts would stop at that. Although i am sure to a Singaporean that a Vietnamese would differ as much as a Greek would to an Englishman.


I respect that you want the law to be changed. I also think it is harsh. but i also disagree that one can say he is being executed "unjustly" or "unfairly", since the laws are well established and the consequences were known.

 

[endlesseulogy]

Again each to his own. I realise that to Singaporean law the decision is just but there comes a time where people must stand up and defend the basic human right to life of a conscious, living, breathing being. The only thing that should be sanctioned to kill you is the very system that put you here in the first place, that is ofcourse the great unknown.

Peace

 

[MoeBro]

I wonder what the reaction of the Australian public would have been if he had blond hair and blue eyes and female?

Similar. He was already portrayed as the good sibling, as a kind, generous soul, being tortured by the cruel state of Singapore.

I wonder how this board would react if none of us had anything to do with drugs

When in Rome... ?

 

[endlesseulogy]

^^ Its funny.. I have posted about this topic on many many many forums, including drug forums and ill have to say that bluelighters have been the most open minded and reasonable bunch OUT OF THE LOT.

When in rome do as the romans do?

Ive never been a follower of cheesy english sayings that really dont take into account circumstance.

 

[KemicalBurn]

^^ Man made laws have absolutly nothing to do with natural selection im afraid. Fair enough if you think they do, but i think its like comparing apples with grapes.

Actually they do.

You see cupcake, we live in a thing called an "environment". Now, this environment is shaped by many things, too many to name and list here, but laws are a contributing factor to how we live our lives and what we can do with our lives.

and how we live and shape our lives is a direct result of how well we adapt to our environment.

Now this is evolutionism at its bare bones - one who cant or doesnt adapt to their environment is a genetic dead end.

and given the fact that aforementioned "genetic dead end" knew the laws were in place and undertook his role in smuggling regardless - then it's a pretty cut and dried case for Darwinism.

It's science

 

[endlesseulogy]

Actually they do.

You see cupcake, we live in a thing called an "environment". Now, this environment is shaped by many things, too many to name and list here, but laws are a contributing factor to how we live our lives and what we can do with our lives.

and how we live and shape our lives is a direct result of how well we adapt to our environment.

Now this is evolutionism at its bare bones - one who cant or doesnt adapt to their environment is a genetic dead end.

and given the fact that aforementioned "genetic dead end" knew the laws were in place and undertook his role in smuggling regardless - then it's a pretty cut and dried case for Darwinism.

It's science

^^

Wow, that dosnt make me feel all warm and cosy. Its science. lol

Natural selection involves the transmission of genetic information from one species to another.

You are talking about survival of the fitest which is i guess a part of natural selection. But to label this as having something directly to do with natural selection is pretty inaccurate.

Are you saying that the heroin trafficker is a new species, dicetlymorphenus traffickus, and that if enough of them get hung the heroin problem will disapear. Or maybe if they resist, in the future humans will have a leather-like piece of thick flesh around their necks that will enable them to resist the gallows?

 

[MoeBro]

dude, are you making sense of anything you're reading?

The fact that Van will not have a chance to procreate relates directly to the transmission of genetic information.

Species themselves advance through natural selection. New species didn't spring up from nowhere and suddenly die out because there was a fault in their genetics, they evolved from previously existing species, be it due to a certain trait that allowed them to go about life more succesfully. Like longer legs, or an opposed thumb.
Removing the weak or the stupid from the gene pool means the offspring of the successful creatures will typically have a higher intellect or will be stronger.

If all humans were to have to deal with a pathetically poor executioner, one who attacked out of the blue, hanged you and then ran away leaving you to escape if you weren't dead, then we'd probably eventually eventually evolve to have no necks, or stronger muscles supporting the neck/head... In like 3 million years...

In the meantime, don't smuggle or deal drugs in Singapore and you won't have to worry about the death sentence.

edit - seeing as you just edited:
Van is a genetic dead end. His combination of genes will most likely never exist if his mother and father had another 400 million children, and given that the environment that Van MkII will grow up in will be different, Van MkII will never be the same man as the classic model of Van.

And fuck me with a 10foot donkey pole. Do you know _anything_ about natural selection, or are you just making it up as you go along? Natural selection deals with a singular species. Not 'other species vs other species'.

 

[KemicalBurn]

Do you understand evolution at all? cause im not going to waste my time explaining it to you cause - gosh darn it - ive just got better things to do with my time than to play internet footsies with you today, pumpkin.

here's where you fucked up:

"survival of the fittest" - no. Evolution is about adapting.

"Natural selection involves the transmission of genetic information from one species to another." - no. its removal of such genetic traits that prove to counter-productive to a species as they evolve to a new species.

"Are you saying that the heroin trafficker is a new species" - no. only that to be a drug mule you must have compromised intelligence.

[edit: for EE, but Moe summed it up far better than myself ]

 

[endlesseulogy]

And fuck me with a 10foot donkey pole. Do you know _anything_ about natural selection, or are you just making it up as you go along? Natural selection deals with a singular species. Not 'other species vs other species'.

You are right there.

I havnt studied evolution since high school, thanks for pointing that out moebro.

I still thinking using Charles Darwin to explain the case of Van is pretty pointless. In the book im reading right now it talks about new advances on the chaos theory and how it is throwing alot of Dr.Darwins work into tatters. Population biologists are starting to think evolution is alot more random and unpredictable then what darwin and most of the world thinks.

I guess we are scraping the bottom of the barrel.

 

[KemicalBurn]

chaos theory wouldnt throw his work into tatters - it would be advancing his theory.

completely different.

and before you continue and make a fool out of yourself any further bambi, ive studied both at a tertiary level - so what youve "learnt" from that book of yours pales in comparison.

 

[endlesseulogy]

chaos theory wouldnt throw his work into tatters - it would be advancing his theory.

completely different.

and before you continue and make a fool out of yourself any further bambi, ive studied both at a tertiary level - so what youve "learnt" from that book of yours pales in comparison.

LOL... I just love people who get off on power games... I dont really care about making a 'fool' of myself to people like you. Honestly. Just like you seem to know heaps and heaps about Darwinism, I bet you havnt read the Quran cover to cover or maybe spent 2 years studying the Dharma. Its all irrelevant. Instead of putting people down and being an egotistical little snob boy, maybe you could do the constructive thing and let some sort of information exchange happen. Whoever gave you Moderator privlidges must have been pretty silly, thats all i can say.

 

[KemicalBurn]

Well, sparky..i havent read the quran or dharma or whatever...so do you know what i do?

I dont speak of them - cause i know i know jackshit about them and dont make incorrect assumptions or half-arsed theories using limited knowledge and then try to correct someone who does know what they are talking about.

As for the "information exchange" - ive already done this. you, instead of taking what i had to say on board, decided to attempt to rebuke what i had to say with the knowledge of a complex subject your high-school teacher would have dedicated all of 3-4 classes on it.

So before you enter martyrdom along with plazma and SS, do yourself a favour and get to know the argument you are dissagreeing with.

Its fairly simple.

 

[Duckboy]

Pile on!!

YAY!!

 

[endlesseulogy]

Well, sparky..i havent read the quran or dharma or whatever...so do you know what i do?

I dont speak of them - cause i know i know jackshit about them and dont make incorrect assumptions or half-arsed theories using limited knowledge and then try to correct someone who does know what they are talking about.

As for the "information exchange" - ive already done this. you, instead of taking what i had to say on board, decided to attempt to rebuke what i had to say with the knowledge of a complex subject your high-school teacher would have dedicated all of 3-4 classes on it.

So before you enter martyrdom along with plazma and SS, do yourself a favour and get to know the argument you are dissagreeing with.

Its fairly simple.

You my friend are unbelivable. If you care to scroll up i appologised for my ignorance to moebro and took what HE said on board. Maybe because he isnt as insulant, vulgar and completely egotistical as yourself. Take a look at yourself and how you construct your replies. Everyone has full right to make assumptions and talk about what they want, even with little knowledge. Its up to the other person to educate them in a civilised manner if you want them to take it on board.

End rant. Lets stop thinking about our petty disagreements and focus on some real issues.

 

[KemicalBurn]

awwww.. did the big, bad KB say mean things to you?

actually junior, its not my responsibilty to teach you anything, however, the fact remains - if you wish to argue something with someone, do yourself a favour and at least do a quick little google on the subject matter first.

Ideally, before you try and disprove anothers arguments.

just some food for thought