[cycloon]

Genuinely not trying to be an arsehole but is it? I'm just imagining applying that to rape and it doesn't work.

I did write a big long reply, but I confused myself. Oh dear.

How about this, which is far shorter:

Comparing rape and opt-out organ donation is a stupid fucking idea, because an implied consent system for rape would result in untold misery and suffering to living people, whereas an implied consent system for organ donation would save lives and would be easy to opt out of well before it makes any difference whatsoever.

There's also my more philosophical objection that comparing anything that isn't actually rape to rape is openly contemptible.

that's where it was going, ta. Minus the swearing ^^

[bairy]

That's just sick. The exclamation mark indicates to me that she enjoyed saying it as well- "Ha Ha, McBroon has a disabled son- serves him right!"

Complete and utter bitch.

It's not just sick, it's completely irrelevant and rather nasty too.

So what if Brown has had an incentive in the form of his son. It's a policy that could potentially save people's lives.
Apparently though Mail readers are far more concerned with trying to find conspiracies than helping others.

[Baht At]

That's just sick. The exclamation mark indicates to me that she enjoyed saying it as well- "Ha Ha, McBroon has a disabled son- serves him right!"

Complete and utter bitch.

I'm not sure it is - he didn't start spouting all his crap about famillies until he got married. I'm not entirely sure he's actually capable of understanding anything that isn't personal to himself.

[office_tramp]

One comment, which I think is low even for the Mail, is under Melanie Phillips spittle-flecked ravings:

Gordon is possibly backing this because his last son was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis and may need a heart and lung transplant in later years!

- Jen, South Wales

That's becuase Jen is herself unable to comprehend anything on a macro level and is so stupid she assumes the Prime Minister has a similarly limited frame of reference.

[Baht At]

One comment, which I think is low even for the Mail, is under Melanie Phillips spittle-flecked ravings:

Gordon is possibly backing this because his last son was diagnosed with cystic fibrosis and may need a heart and lung transplant in later years!

- Jen, South Wales

That's becuase Jen is herself unable to comprehend anything on a macro level and is so stupid she assumes the Prime Minister has a similarly limited frame of reference.

You ever considered the possibility that the evidence shows she's right?

[cycloon]

And yet...the organ donor list exists anyway. Even if she is 100% accurate anyway, it's a snide way to pick up on the issue.

[Baht At]

And yet...the organ donor list exists anyway. Even if she is 100% accurate anyway, it's a snide way to pick up on the issue.

I think you haven't read the article (a common failing in Mail readers I'll concede) the change proposed is from opt-in (the present, which means your bits can't be pillaged to keep the Broon family in kidneys etc) to opt-out (which means unless you say so you are merely spare parts for Mr Bean)

[cycloon]

Er, I knew that. That doesn't change my point; it's a snide and childish way of picking up on the article.

[jonnyhead]

One comment, which I think is low even for the Mail, is under Melanie Phillips spittle-flecked ravings:

That's becuase Jen is herself unable to comprehend anything on a macro level and is so stupid she assumes the Prime Minister has a similarly limited frame of reference.

You ever considered the possibility that the evidence shows she's right?

What evidence is that?

[spalec]

I wouldn't offer my organs for transplant because I wouldn't trust an NHS doctor to properly determine a state of death. I will gladly sign up to the optout register, especially as it would be contrary to Gordon Brown's wishes.
Whichever way Gordon Brown is heading with his ideas, I want to be heading in the opposite direction.

- Gerald, Southampton, UK

Gordon is against suicide too I hear, should I pass you the bleach now, or would you prefer some rope?

[cycloon]

How to prove one is a childish reactionary dick;

'WHATEVER YOU DO I DO THE OPPOSITE!!!!'

[JuanTwoThree]

Mind you, I apply that logic to the Mail, Express, UKIP, Tory Right, Spanish bishops etcetera. Whatever they are for, I'm instinctively against, at first at any rate. Though occasionally after the initial gut-feeling that they're probably wrong, I have to agree that they're not.

[Adrian]

Genuinely not trying to be an arsehole but is it? I'm just imagining applying that to rape and it doesn't work.

I did write a big long reply, but I confused myself. Oh dear.

How about this, which is far shorter:

Comparing rape and opt-out organ donation is a stupid fucking idea, because an implied consent system for rape would result in untold misery and suffering to living people, whereas an implied consent system for organ donation would save lives and would be easy to opt out of well before it makes any difference whatsoever.

I think that's quite a poor argument because you've just leapt in and totally ignored any potential negative consequences of an opt-out system. An opt-out system could cause suffering. People get upset enough about the taking of organs of their deceased loved ones already. I can only imagine an opt-out system causing more upset for families. I'm not saying the downsides of opt-out make it an unviable option, just that it's not all sunshine and rainbows.

There's also my more philosophical objection that comparing anything that isn't actually rape to rape is openly contemptible.

I think that's a bit unfair, it's not as if I was comparing stealing a square of chocolate to rape.

I haven't been able to edit this post as much as I wanted to because I have to go out now, so bear that in mind if there's a glaring hole in my logic somewhere.

[Baht At]

That's becuase Jen is herself unable to comprehend anything on a macro level and is so stupid she assumes the Prime Minister has a similarly limited frame of reference.

You ever considered the possibility that the evidence shows she's right?

What evidence is that?

the very considerable evidence that he has certain deficiencies in the way he socialises (to the extent that it is suggested by many that he is autistic)

[Winston O'Hoodie]

Baht At wrote

the very considerable evidence that he has certain deficiencies in the way he socialises (to the extent that it is suggested by many that he is autistic)

The 'many' including such experts in this field as George Osborne and Alistair Campbell. Is there anyone you would like to cite that would back up this 'diagnosis' of autism that doesn't include Tory politicians, Blairites and right-wing journalists/writers?