.... I say put him on the streets and let him fend for himself..
Posted by toppa, Thursday, 10 July 2008 2:40:39 PM

Ah toppa, I think you will find this is exactly what he attempted to do it's just that the mob decided that 12km from the nearest shop, school, pub etc was to close.

So what do you mean when you say "put him out in the steet to fend for himself"?

Also, don't forget, he was costing the state next to nothing to be there and thanks to the mob we now have to foot the gand a day scam.

Thanks for that!

Spikey, I just came across your silly accusation of 'rage' from last Thursday. For your info, I was perfectly calm when I wrote my post about the beast. Why did you think otherwise? Was it simply that you disagreed with my views?

You agreed 'yes' for my first point. So, if Ferguson becomes a beast and renounces human rights, what's your problem when he is given none?

As for your opinion of 'food for thought' do you seriously think that Ferguson could learn from his 'mistakes'? Get real. Why don't you think about the ruined lives of his victims for a change and stop worrying yourself over a piece of scum that doesn't deserve life?

BTW, I think it is right to take the law into your own hands when the law fails. You have to realise that law and justice are not the same. As I've stated in the past, Ferguson would not be alive if my kids were his victims. I'm sure that that will further convince you of my 'raging evilness' while you wait patiently for Ferguson's 'rehabilitation'.

Austin Powerless

How did I know you were in a rage? As it happened I did disagree with your one suggestion - chemical castration. But that's not why I suggested you calm down and consider some other opinions. The rage indicators were your savage rejection of reason. And your inability to engage with other ideas. You wouldn't normally froth at the mouth, would you?

I now see you've become even angrier with anything but your own (even more) extreme position.

"If Ferguson becomes a beast and renounces human rights, what's your problem when he is given none?"

My earlier post told you what the problem with that is - but I'll give you another chance to get it. We should not meet bestiality with state-condoned bestiality. We should not meet violence by the individual with mob violence. We should not meet a person's lawlessness with lawlessness of the group. We should not meet irrationality with more irrationality. In short, we don't want to become like the person we are raging against.

As for 'food for thought' you may be right to think that Ferguson is incapable of learning from his crimes. But the civilised people who have to deal with his carnage surely are capable of learning from his mistakes. Not of repeating them with criminal behaviour.

When you reduce a criminal to"... a piece of scum that doesn't deserve life" and declare that "...it is right to take the law into your own hands when the law fails" and that "Ferguson would not be alive if my kids were his victim", it's hard to see the real difference between you and Ferguson.

You think only in black-and-white terms. The alternatives are not between being totally enraged versus waiting patiently for Ferguson's rehabilitation. Lots of posters have provided some other positive options worth considering.

Spikey, again you're making silly assumptions.

I'm calmly replying to your little 'rage' accusations but I'm sure that you'll still spout out that I am writing in anger.

FYI, I never react in anger. I wait until I have assessed whatever I find wrong or troubling and then decide what to do, or not to do. Vengeance is a dish best eaten cold. Ferguson is safe form me as he never came near my kids. If he did...
From your outbursts, it would appear that you are the one in need of anger management.

How would you propose to treat Ferguson? Let him move in with you?

I did not 'reduce a criminal to"... a piece of scum that doesn't deserve life"'. I described a beast. He's a predator, criminal is too mild a word for him.

As for your laughable 'it's hard to see the real difference between you and Ferguson', you really lost it now. Unless you meant it as a compliment where you don't appear to see much wrong with Ferguson (he's only a criminal in your misty eyes).

If you had kids and the beast molested them, what would you do?

Austin Powerless says: "...I never react in anger. I wait until I have assessed whatever I find wrong or troubling and then decide what to do, or not to do. Vengeance is a dish best eaten cold."

So your menu of calm cold dishes include:

- Threat to murder - albeit conditional: "Ferguson is safe form me as he never came near my kids. [and from your earlier post:] Ferguson would not be alive if my kids were his victims."

- Lawlessness and incitement to others to break the law: "I think it is right to take the law into your own hands when the law fails."

- The use of barbarous punishment: "Chemical castration".

- The amazing capacity to deny you rage and project it on to someone else: "From your outbursts, it would appear that you are the one in need of anger management."

- Reducing alternatives to absurdity: "How would you propose to treat Ferguson? Let him move in with you?" Again you demonstrate that you see issues only in black-and-white. When I reject your over-the-top brutal solutions, I am not advocating a 'soft' approach to crimes of this sort.

You ask: "If you had kids and the beast molested them, what would you do?" I would expect the law to be fully implemented and swiftly. If I were still unhappy with that, I would agitate to have the law changed.

On 10 July 2008 I made some further suggestions. I also commended to you Bronwyn's posting. Does that sound like anger to you?

Hounding the guy only shows the moronic side of man.
Dennis needs to be seperated.
I dont think its as difficult as the government thinks.