I am sorry, Nifty - when I added in the end of my post (under P.S.) the disclaimer that my name caling in responce to your "malicious" was not for real I just forgot about that "idiot" in the beginning. I will change it right away.
If you've "actually read and remembered the rest of [my] little diatribe" you would have seen that. Again, sorry.
You imply I would have supported prohibition,..
What mattered in my analogy was not what particular view you hold but that all those people were driven by "good intentions". I did not mean "you" but I "like you" - people only seing the positive effects of any action they propose but blind to the negative reprecussions.
I assumed from your posts - possibly incorrectly - that you support the idea of making organs available for transplant by default, without prior and explicit concent of the deceased. That would increase supply but also immediately open a huge area for abuse and murder.
I guess that answer is obvious only to the malicious.
(btw, murdering one or more innocents to save the life of someone is malicious. No other way to look at it.)
I agree with the second statement. But just because I've thought of that possibility, you still have no call to imply that I am malicious. That is a personal attack on your part.
Lots of people have knowlege of bad things through their experience or occupation - policemen, soldiers, politicians, etc. That does not mean they are malicious.
You have no right to imply that even when I say that if somethng happened to my child that could make me mentally unstable and drive me towards an act I consider an atrocirty. That is a purely hypothetical statement.
Nobody knows what would I do in that situation. For that matter nobody knows what you would do either...
miko
