Personal Freedom vs. Public Welfare

[ok doser]

Yep
I'm tired of this.
Have a nice fday

Probably for the best - you were getting uncharacteristically abusive.

I'll see you next time. :wave2:

 

[Gary K]

In response to the statistical likelihood of harm coming from actions perpetrated by young black males:

Last night I drove home drunk. I was exceedingly cautious and careful. I took a route in which I knew I would encounter no other vehicle or pedestrian on the road. I obeyed the speed limit and the traffic laws. I arrived home safely and without causing any harm.

What "dangerous behavior"did I engage in?

I'd say you did all you could to mitigate the risks. But the risk was still there. What if you'd met another drunk coming the other way? Since it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt that drinking alcohol messes with not only reaction times but the actual form of the reactions themselves the risk is still there.

Now when you say you drove home drunk the next question is: What do you mean by drunk? Did you drink enough to have a BAC just over the legal limit? Or did you drink extensively and have a BAC far above the legal limit? In other words, did you just have a slight buzz, or were you slurring you words and having a hard time walking and/or physically functioning?

The first condition can be pretty much accommodated by an experienced drinker who builds up a tolerance to alcohol over the years and takes precautions knowing he is going to be somewhat impaired. The second is plain stupidity. Not knocking you, just plain stating facts as I've been there and done that. And I had a large tolerance for alcohol. It wasn't unusual for me to drink a 5th of hard liquor all by myself, or if in a bar drink 20 double shots during a night of drinking. Beer did very little to me as far as me reaching the point of real drunkenness. I've had waitresses in bars ask me how I maintained my apparent sobriety after they had observed me drinking beer by the gallon for more than six hours. The next morning though I would fall over getting out of bed. I was still that drunk after 6 hours of sleep. But at the time I was drinking sober people observing me couldn't see the effects of the drunkenness. I'm not bragging because drinking to that excess is just plain stupid. It's just how things were for me at the time.

 

[ok doser]

I'd say you did all you could to mitigate the risks. But the risk was still there. What if you'd met another drunk coming the other way? Since it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt that drinking alcohol messes with not only reaction times but the actual form of the reactions themselves the risk is still there.

Now when you say you drove home drunk the next question is: What do you mean by drunk? Did you drink enough to have a BAC just over the legal limit? Or did you drink extensively and have a BAC far above the legal limit? In other words, did you just have a slight buzz, or were you slurring you words and having a hard time walking and/or physically functioning?

The first condition can be pretty much accommodated by an experienced drinker who builds up a tolerance to alcohol over the years and takes precautions knowing he is going to be somewhat impaired. The second is plain stupidity. Not knocking you, just plain stating facts as I've been there and done that. And I had a large tolerance for alcohol. It wasn't unusual for me to drink a 5th of hard liquor all by myself, or if in a bar drink 20 double shots during a night of drinking. Beer did very little to me as far as me reaching the point of real drunkenness. I've had waitresses in bars ask me how I maintained my apparent sobriety after they had observed me drinking beer by the gallon for more than six hours. The next morning though I would fall over getting out of bed. I was still that drunk after 6 hours of sleep. But at the time I was drinking sober people observing me couldn't see the effects of the drunkenness. I'm not bragging because drinking to that excess is just plain stupid. It's just how things were for me at the time.

For the purpose of the conversation I was having with Chair I was describing somebody who is just over the legal limit. When I had a CDL that meant TWO regular beers within an hour.

If the conversation hadn't bogged down in all the retarded cross chatter from idiots like artie and eider and quip, I was interested in discussing other phenomenon/behaviors/actions that impact driving ability that aren't regulated, like drowsiness and distractedness.

But I'm amazed by the degree to which it did get bogged down in a discussion about traffic law. I kept trying to bring it back to general principles which is what Chair was interested in discussing in his OP.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's not a bunny trail- you keep side-stepping the issue. You've already admitted that your "harm only" approach doesn't hold water.

Every normal society punishes people for dangerous behavior, whether or not it in fact harmed somebody- they don't punish people for who they are. You tried that dumb argument before.

Exactly. Logically that's the only way such laws can work. If you look at footage from years ago, before traffic lights were introduced it was kinda insane. People stepping out and crossing roads in front of cars and trams etc. Granted, traffic was a lot slower back then but something had to give in order to make things safer for pedestrians and motorists alike. The same with speeding laws and drink driving. All of these things, especially now are necessary in order to protect public safety and reduce such events occurring.

Drink driving has been a proven cause of accidents, fatalities and injuries so the logical course of action was to make a law deeming such illegal. Without such a law in place then anybody would have a pretty easy defence in court if they caused an accident while being intoxicated - that being that there was no law in place that made such a crime. It's not like the law isn't clear on the point and why such is in place. It's obvious, so anyone who drives while drunk is doing so knowing full well the risks of not only what they could cause as a result of their irresponsibility but also what will happen if they're pulled over by the cops. The same with anyone who decides to jump a red light or drive over the speed limit. There's cameras in place that record such reckless behaviour and motorists will receive the appropriate punishment after their license plates have been put through the system.

All entirely logical and sensible. Unlike trying to justify drink driving unless an accident happens...

 

[Arthur Brain]

I'd say you did all you could to mitigate the risks. But the risk was still there. What if you'd met another drunk coming the other way? Since it is proven beyond a shadow of doubt that drinking alcohol messes with not only reaction times but the actual form of the reactions themselves the risk is still there.

Now when you say you drove home drunk the next question is: What do you mean by drunk? Did you drink enough to have a BAC just over the legal limit? Or did you drink extensively and have a BAC far above the legal limit? In other words, did you just have a slight buzz, or were you slurring you words and having a hard time walking and/or physically functioning?

The first condition can be pretty much accommodated by an experienced drinker who builds up a tolerance to alcohol over the years and takes precautions knowing he is going to be somewhat impaired. The second is plain stupidity. Not knocking you, just plain stating facts as I've been there and done that. And I had a large tolerance for alcohol. It wasn't unusual for me to drink a 5th of hard liquor all by myself, or if in a bar drink 20 double shots during a night of drinking. Beer did very little to me as far as me reaching the point of real drunkenness. I've had waitresses in bars ask me how I maintained my apparent sobriety after they had observed me drinking beer by the gallon for more than six hours. The next morning though I would fall over getting out of bed. I was still that drunk after 6 hours of sleep. But at the time I was drinking sober people observing me couldn't see the effects of the drunkenness. I'm not bragging because drinking to that excess is just plain stupid. It's just how things were for me at the time.

The trouble is, there's no meaningful way to gauge just how "drunk" you are. Plenty of people have driven a car after drinking with the excuse of "feeling fine" but given that alcohol impairs judgement and reaction, then they can't be the arbiter of just how affected they actually are, hence laws that set a limit. Ultimately, there's no excuse for driving while intoxicated because the proven effects of alcohol are on record for all to see. If you want a drink then leave the car at home.

 

[ok doser]

Unlike trying to justify drink driving unless an accident happens...

The fact that you can post that even now after being corrected so many times is just further proof that you are a total moron :sigh:

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's very simple. If you down a quart of scotch, you become a dangerous driver- and I maintain, again, that there is room for "unjust" laws that are needed to protect society.

Quite, and there's nothing unjust about a law that punishes an irresponsible driver whether they go on to cause an accident through their reckless behaviour or not.

 

[Arthur Brain]

The fact that you can post that even now after being corrected so many times is just further proof that you are a total moron :sigh:

Hardly. You're the one who's constantly stated that being punished for driving while drunk is unjust if there was no harm caused by such actions.

 

[ok doser]

Quite, and there's nothing unjust about a law that punishes an irresponsible driver whether they go on to cause an accident through their reckless behaviour or not.

And if the "irresponsible" driver engaging in "reckless" behavior is extremely cautious and conscientious, obeying all the traffic rules and is successful in ensuring that both he and everybody with whom he shares the road comes to no harm?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Then I will modify my position to include not only harm but also intended harm.

If you down a quart of scotch and hop behind the wheel of your 4 by 4 with the intention of running others off the road, even though people can swerve to avoid you and nobody is harmed, you have ATTEMPTED to cause harm and thus I would say are deserving of punishment.

If you down a quart of scotch and intend to get behind the wheel of a 4 x 4 then you're already putting lives at risk through your selfish desire to drive while being impaired by alcohol.

 

[Arthur Brain]

And if the "irresponsible" driver engaging in "reckless" behavior is extremely cautious and conscientious, obeying all the traffic rules and is successful in ensuring that both he and everybody with whom he shares the road comes to no harm?

You're drunk, your judgement is impaired, your reaction times and responses are slowed. It doesn't matter how "careful" you might think you're being. What, do you think that drunken drivers who have caused accidents and killed people thought they were out of control?

 

[ok doser]

Hardly. You're the one who's constantly stated that being punished for driving while drunk is unjust if there was no harm caused by such actions.

Really?

You're such a moron you're conflating "unjust" and "justify"? :sigh:

 

[ok doser]

You're drunk, your judgement is impaired, your reaction times and responses are slowed. It doesn't matter how "careful" you might think you're being. What, do you think that drunken drivers who have caused accidents and killed people thought they were out of control?

That doesn't address the question I asked.

Unsurprisingly

 

[Arthur Brain]

Really?

You're such a moron you're conflating "unjust" and "justify"? :sigh:

Claiming that the drink driving law is unjust unless harm is caused is irrational. There's no logic to your position, as has been outlined time and time again. That you persist with such an untenable position is nobody else's fault.

 

[Arthur Brain]

That doesn't address the question I asked.

Unsurprisingly

Of course it does. If you're drunk then you're impaired and regardless of how much control you may personally think that you're actually in is irrelevant.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Probably for the best - you were getting uncharacteristically abusive.

I'll see you next time. :wave2:

He wasn't being abusive at all so that's just yet more projection on your part. He's probably just tired of your irrational arguments and constant deflection, and who can blame him?

 

[Arthur Brain]

In Hebrew we have an expression: "He climbed up a tree, and can't find the way down." i.e. OK Doser has committed to an absurd position, and is unwilling to deal with the embarrassment of admitting that he is wrong. Maybe we should all turn our backs, and let him climb down quietly at night.

That sums it up rather succinctly.

:thumb:

 

[Arthur Brain]

In response to the statistical likelihood of harm coming from actions perpetrated by young black males:

Last night I drove home drunk. I was exceedingly cautious and careful. I took a route in which I knew I would encounter no other vehicle or pedestrian on the road. I obeyed the speed limit and the traffic laws. I arrived home safely and without causing any harm.

What "dangerous behavior"did I engage in?

Driving while drunk...

:AMR:

 

[ok doser]

Of course it does. If you're drunk then you're impaired and regardless of how much control you may personally think that you're actually in is irrelevant.

Yes that's nice



Run along now little child

 

[quip]

Last night I drove home drunk. I was exceedingly cautious and careful. I took a route in which I knew I would encounter no other vehicle or pedestrian on the road. I obeyed the speed limit and the traffic laws. I arrived home safely and without causing any harm.

What "dangerous behavior"did I engage in?

Why the need to be exceedingly cautious?