Personal Freedom vs. Public Welfare
- Thread starter chair
- Start date
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
it was a direct response to Chair's post regarding statistical analysis and harm reduction
unsurprisingly, you two tards don't understand it at all :chuckle:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Nice to see you admit it :thumb:
How ironic.
I understand the underlying nuances of your argument better than you.
Yes, it's a curse.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
How ironic, you never read the OP and are just playing the troll
of course, nobody expects anything different from you
Ironic because you're a shallow puddle of a human being....I certainly don't have to delve too deep in order to fathom you out. (Or catch you in another side-bar deflection.)
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
yes, that's nice
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Oh, I understand it all too well but there's no logic to your argument. Even if these stats you've read bear out, the law deals with crime and people who commit them, be they white, black or whatever. To take your position further, there'd be all manner of groups of people which according to stats may have a higher crime rate than others but you don't punish people for their age, race, sexuality etc but whether or not they actually commit a criminal offence. It would be nonsensical and immoral for the law to work in any other way.
When you drink and drive then you are committing a criminal act.
Oh, and you're really not helping yourself by calling anyone a "tard" when you've proven to be emotionally retarded yourself.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It's not nice as such, it's simply logical, whereas your "argument(s)" haven't been. Still, act like a hurt schoolkid if you must.
:e4e:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
So you agree with me- society needs such rules, even if they don't fit your definition of 'just'.
But then you go ahead and say the following:
I maintain that this is impossible, you are inconsistent. First you say "It may be that society cannot function without inherently unjust rules.", then "Easy - formulate such laws so that they are inherently just, so that they punish behaviors and actions that cause harm."
So which is it?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Why is it impossible to formulate laws that are just, that punish behaviors and actions that cause harm? We manage it in areas of law other than traffic rules correct?
It is in fact impossible, as you admitted a few posts ago.
The reason is that you have defined "causing harm" in a very limited way- that someone should be punished only if in fact they have caused harm.
Let's take an example from another area of the law: murder.
I go out into the street and see my neighbor Jimmy, whom I've hated for years, out walking his dog. I go into my house, grab my revolver, make sure it's loaded, and run after Jimmy.
I shout: "Jimmy, I've had it! I'm going to kill you!"
Then I take careful aim, and shoot at Jimmy. Six times. But I am a lousy shot, and I miss every single time. I do manage to put a hole in a neighbor's windshield.
I find the car owner, who is standing nearby, and pay him for the damages.
The police show up, see that nobody was hurt, and that I'd settled with the car owner already- so they...just leave. I go home, reload my revolver, and put it back in my drawer.
Does this make sense to you?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I "admitted" that it MIGHT be impossible
Much like Moses and divorce
It's a Biblical concept
It's a Biblical concept
Please explain how this is "Biblical".
And, while you are at it, finally describe the ideal traffic law system that is just and allows for decent traffic. If you can't- then fine, we understand that it is impossible.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
That's an interesting one. Obviously you can't be charged with murder because you haven't actually killed anybody. However, there's a strong likelihood that you would be charged with attempted murder, itself a crime. There would likely be several witnesses to the event who heard your outburst along with the ensuing shooting, not least the guy you tried to kill who would report you to the police. There'd be a ballistics investigation and the other five bullets would be recovered, not to mention if you were caught on CCTV. So whilst you can't be charged with murder, you can still be prosecuted for the above.
In like manner, a drunk driver can't be charged with killing anybody if they're driving under the influence and there's no resulting incident. If pulled over by the cops and they fail a breathalyser test however, then they can still be still be charged with the crime of driving while in an impaired state due to alcohol.
Arresting someone for "Attempted Murder" is unjust, according to OK Doser's thinking . After all- no one got hurt!
So far he hasn't related to this attempted murder case, though he's clearly seen it.