BrianW wrote:
> On 21 Aug, 17:58, "Brimstone"
yahoo.co.uk> wrote:>>>> On 20 Aug, 18:26, Adrian
gmail.com> wrote:>>>>> Doug
riseup.net> gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>>>>> were saying:>>
>>>>>> Motorists who dominate this transport newsgroup expressed disgust
>>>>>> when animal rights activists dug up a single dead body in a
>>>>>> graveyard but this is nothing compared to the plan to put a road
>>>>>> through a graveyard to assist Heathrow expansion and where many
>>>>>> loved ones will be dug up. Justify?
>>
>>>>> Simple.
>>
>>>>> The graveyard isn't being dug up solely to kidnap a known corpse
>>>>> in order to try to blackmail somebody running a perfectly
>>>>> legitimate business. The remains from the graveyard will be
>>>>> relocated - as with any other
>>>>> graveyard which is relocated - with dignity, in known locations.
>>
>>>>> If you REALLY can't spot a difference between the two, your moral
>>>>> compass is even more fucked than we suspected.
>>
>>>> The graveyard would be dug up so that Heathrow and the government
>>>> can go ahead with its expansion plans regardless of the wishes of
>>>> the relatives of the dead. Since there will be multiple
>>>> disinterments this is very much worse than that of the ARAs.
>>
>>> Do you really have problems grasping the fact that moving graveyards
>>> is legal and that digging up bodies without permission is illegal?
>>> It really should not be necessary to say more than that.
>>
>> What's legal or otherwise is of no matter to Doug.
>>
>> He thinks (I use the term loosely) that if the authorities can do it
>> for a good reason such as building a new road or railway then him
>> and his ART mates should be allowed to dig up a body to hold the
>> relatives to ransom for some petty self-centered reason.-
>
> It's a great argument of Doug's, which could be used to justify almost
> anything. For example, it is permissible for the authorities to
> dynamite buildings which are no longer in use. Ergo, it must be OK
> for the IRA to blow up buildings. It is permissible for the
> authorities to remove children from their parents when there is a risk
> of abuse. Ergo, it would be OK for Gollum's ART mates to kidnap an
> animal lab boss' kids and hold them to ransom.
>
> Gollum really is a retard, isn't he?
Retard people I've got some sympathy for. Doug provokes no emotion other
than utter revulsion for his distorted views in which everyone else is wrong
regardless of the subject and what they're trying to do.
