The Philosophy of Drunk Driving

Quote:

People who are hot for child porn are at a greater degree of becoming future kiddy-touchers, although it's not a guarentee.

You need to stop this now. I don't know what you think you're doing, but it needs to be put out of its misery.

Look bitch, cut this retarded shit. I don't give a fuck what you have to say at this point, especially when all you can do is tell me to "stop it" and debunk my statements with ridiculous hyperbole. Cut it out.

Quote:

I keep telling you to stop why aren't you listening to me.

Because I don't care. I've mentioned several times that this is a matter of principle for me, and people are free to disagree. Yes, I don't think I should have to research other people's arguments for them, and no I'm not going to "stop it" because it will make you think less of me. I'm tired of this shit you're pulling.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You need to stop this, Brady, for our sake as well as your own. It's gone well beyond appearances. People are starting to notice, I don't think that's something you want.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Hopefully what they notice is that I react negatively to being condescended to.

Maybe if you didn't compare drunk drivers to those complicit in child rape and didn't act like my fucking mom, I wouldn't seem so "hysterical."

I was speaking idiomatically.

No, you still would. that's the only explanation I can think of when someone makes a thread proposing dropping drunk driving laws and then insist that everyone around you comes up with evidence that you then ignore.

I don't know what crawled into the vag and I dont' want to know, so just stop this

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Because possessing a blood alcohol content above a .08 does not make one a reckless driver. I can only repeat this so many times before I wonder if any of you are listening. BAC can only ever raise the likelihood of one being a danger to others, it doesn't act as a guarantee.



Yeah, it sort of does. If there is no danger, then what harm or potential harm is there being commited?

A large body of scientific research indicates that people will act more recklessly, will react more slowly, and will be distracted more easily when they're tired or drunk (especially both). The physiological and psychological effects on people are well understood. Accidents occur when people don't react properly or quickly enough, or put themselves in a place where it's physically impossible to react quickly enough (like exceeding the tolerances of your car or your grip on the road). If you wish to deny either of those facts, you may as well say it's faeries and leprechans keeping you safe on the highway.

This is what causes the indisputable statistics that alcohol (often combined with fatigue and inexperience) is one of the most common factors in wrecks and fatalities on the road, even though most of the people on the road are sober. Alcohol reduces the very functions that are most necessary to avoid accidents, in tight situations, and often leads to putting yourself in those tight situations more than you otherwise would.

A small amount of drinking is a small amount of difference in driving habit, but the legal limit is a place where the vast majority of people will have noticeably altered driving habits. Court challenges to the law have failed (or caused it to be altered upward in some cases) because of that. It's not a totally arbitrary limit.

(It's also illegal to drive if you can't stay awake at the wheel. Are you going to claim that's not a danger to others? A lot of people doing it anyway isn't a good excuse. People are very good at rationalizing their behavior in order to get home faster, and to save their pride.)

FELIPE NO

Look, I shouldn't have to explain myself to you. I've orchestrated my arguments, very specifically in this thread. It's not my fault that your selective interpretation of shit I never said is making you think less of me.

What's crawling into my "vag" is that people (not all) keep addressing points that I didn't make. I never said that being drunk doesn't cause accidents. I never said that the studies were wrong, I questioned their science which wasn't mentioned in the report.

I'm not going to sit here and be demonized for shit I didn't say. You're turning this into the Denicalis drama all over again, so stop telling me what I can or can't argue.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Did you point out any studies that defends the point you have made? I looked over your posts, but all I saw was cockamime bullshit retoric coming from you alone.

That you defend your laziness with 'I question the validity of these studies, but that's all the effort I make' is fooling exactly no one. I can't understand why you don't listen when you're being talked to.

Most amazing jew boots

Denicalis drama? Don't drag me into this. You haven't threatened to ban lurker yet, so it's hardly your usual bullshit with me. This is Brady-Lurker drama. You're being utterly inept about something that doesn't involve me this time, leave it that way.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Yeah, God forbid I recall an event that was caused in part by you. You'll notice I'm not invoking you for any fault in this. This is between lurker and me.

Quote:

Did you point out any studies that defends the point you have made? I looked over your posts, but all I saw was cockamime bullshit retoric coming from you alone.

I shouldn't need a study to illustrate that probabilities are not guarantees, and no I'm not going to root through 30 studies for an uknown number that may be scientifically sound. That the report was already using "science by consensus" should be enough to put the burden of proof on the consensus.

Most amazing jew boots

Quote:

I shouldn't need a study to illustrate that probabilities are not guarantees

No, but you damn well better back up your claims when you suggest getting rid / severely overhauling a whole country's worth of traffic laws on the basis of pedantic nitpicking.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

How can I back up a claim with a study that I know would be based on criteria that's impossible to measure? Are there any countries that don't have BAC laws? Can you run a survey where people are honestly going to answer that yes, they do drive drunk despite the law?

I was speaking idiomatically.

perhaps such studies don't exist because the evidence is overwhelmingly against them. Why doesn't this tip you off?

I figured it out. I told you to stop it, you wouldn't listen, and now I'm on to you.

You're a fucking terrorist.

Between getting rid of the drunk driving laws and advocating a return of the gold standard (sup depressions) you want to destroy America.

get the fuck out hajj

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by koifox

A large body of scientific research indicates that people will act more recklessly, will react more slowly, and will be distracted more easily when they're tired or drunk (especially both). The physiological and psychological effects on people are well understood. Accidents occur when people don't react properly or quickly enough, or put themselves in a place where it's physically impossible to react quickly enough (like exceeding the tolerances of your car or your grip on the road). If you wish to deny either of those facts, you may as well say it's faeries and leprechans keeping you safe on the highway.

I don't think anyone's denying these facts. What Bradylama's argument stems from is the belief that something is only really a crime if it deprives someone else of life, liberty, or property (perhaps with some rare exceptions).

While driving with a BAC of 0.8 certainly increases the likelihood of someone committing a "crime" (i.e., destroying property, or harming someone), it should not in and of itself constitute a crime. In many ways, driving while under the influence of alcohol is identical to driving without proper sleep -- yet how many millions of people would be charged under a law that penalizes driving while tired?

My natural tendency is to lean towards Brady's style of thinking. Nowadays, too many laws are about prevention of "crime" (again, using the above limited definition) rather than the punishment or rehabilitation of those who actually commit harm to others. On the other side of the fence, there are those who feel that any steps to prevent crimes from occurring in the first place are far better than attempts to punish criminal ex post facto.

I gravitate more towards the middle on issues like this specific one, where there are significant externalities.

Most amazing jew boots

Well, it was fun while it lasted, guys. Looks like we can't destroy America through the internet. We have to destroy it instead.

I don't even care if the studies do exist. I doubt that they do because I don't think it's possible to perform a study that will get people to honestly admit that they've broken the law, especially one that carries as huge a stigma as drunk driving. "Overwhelming evidence" hasn't stopped studies like the 1998 WHO study which concluded that second hand smoke has no discernable negative effects. "Overwhelming evidence" hasn't silenced global warming skepticism.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I think it's clear that this thread has lost any sense of direction it may have had.

Therefore, it's closed now.

Jam it back in, in the dark.