ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Statistically speaking it does
And Chair's post, to which I was responding, dealt specifically with statistical risk and harm
Personal Freedom vs. Public Welfare
- Thread starter chair
- Start date
Statistically speaking it does
And Chair's post, to which I was responding, dealt specifically with statistical risk and harm
expos4ever
Well-known member
I agree. Back in the day, wackiness was kept in check by the deterrence of public humiliation. Now, the internet acts as a kind of wild west where things like rank stupidity and ugly racism have a home; addlepated hillbillies of like mind can pull on their red ball caps, grab a large mug of Mountain Dew and a couple of deep-fried Twinkies, and sit at their keyboards and backslap each other. The fatuity is thereby allowed to grow like a pernicious virus in a petri dish.Sometimes lunacy needs to be addressed and mocked though...
In short, there is actually a serious case to be made for good-old fashioned jeering and taunting - these arguably have their place in keeping to the idiocy down to, at most, a slow burn.
Whether he actually did it or not is neither here nor there because we have no way of knowing aside from his own word, which is worth nothing. What's as bad if not worse is that he argued in defense of doing it, and tried to justify said behavior. Looks like he's decided to walk all of that back now that those on his side of the fence have pushed back on him.
Statistically speaking....crime went down after Roe v Wade.
Using your criteria....this was a just SC ruling. Correct?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
:darwinsm:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Take it as a "your retarded trolling is hilarious" :chuckle:
:chuckle:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I "admitted to" all sorts of things, pea-brain :chuckle:
Marching into the Sudetenland and occupying Czechoslovakia was one of my favorites
Though I was disappointed that nobody was interested in discussing Zaolzie
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
His efforts weren't getting enough attention so he was pathologically compelled to list them. And it worked, he got the attention he craves. It's a no-win situation, really. Anyone who responds to him feeds the troll, yet silence in the face of his lies and manipulation seems like capitulation to me. It's a conundrum.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
You could go away.
It was really nice here when all you trolls were gone.
Go find another site to troll. How about PJ's?
I was enjoying having a meaningful conversation with Chair
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
Butthurt because you just got pwned, I see.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
The only "reason" to say that ok doser has been arguing in favor of driving drunk is to deliberately misrepresent what ok doser has written.
But, you're not saying that ok doser has been arguing in favor of driving drunk, right? No, of course you're not; because, for you to say that would be for you to be a manifest liar--a lying "moral superior".
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
Arthur Brain has never answered--nor even tried to answer--the question I've been asking him--Why should getting oneself drunk not be criminalized?
Also, neither has chair , User Name , quip, annabenedetti, Rusha, nor anybody else, answered the question.
See, when your reaction to that question is to, over and over (as Arthritis Pain has been doing), say things what amount to no more than "Getting oneself drunk should not be criminalized!", and "Getting oneself drunk should not be criminalized because it should not be criminalized!", and "Getting oneself drunk should not be criminalized because it is not criminalized!", you're not answering, nor trying to answer, the question; rather, what you are doing, therein, is stonewalling against the question.
Also, neither has chair , User Name , quip, annabenedetti, Rusha, nor anybody else, answered the question.
See, when your reaction to that question is to, over and over (as Arthritis Pain has been doing), say things what amount to no more than "Getting oneself drunk should not be criminalized!", and "Getting oneself drunk should not be criminalized because it should not be criminalized!", and "Getting oneself drunk should not be criminalized because it is not criminalized!", you're not answering, nor trying to answer, the question; rather, what you are doing, therein, is stonewalling against the question.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
The question I asked you was "WHY should getting oneself drunk not be criminalized?"
Seriously, Arthritis Pain, how has saying what you said--"If you want to get drunk then that's within your rights. So long as you're not putting anyone else in harms way then you can drink what you want"--answered my question? That's right: it has not answered my question.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
That's Rusha's go to when she's not pretending to have me on ignore.
That's artie's go to when he's not pretending to have me on ignore.
It's why I usually do little more than ridicule them.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
The place is better when you're gone too, troll