Personal Freedom vs. Public Welfare

7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Arthur Brain said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why do you encourage drinking right after you say "that alcohol impairs judgement and reaction", and that one "can't be the arbiter of just how affected" he/she actually is? Perhaps you desire others to become drunk so that they will, at least temporarily, become as mentally impaired as you are on a regular basis; perhaps you're operating according to the adage, "Misery loves company".

"Ultimately, there's no excuse for driving while intoxicated because the proven effects of alcohol are on record for all to see."

So, then, "ultimately", what excuse do you say there is for drinking alcohol, since it "impairs judgement and reaction", and it inhibits the one drinking it from being "the arbiter of just how affected they actually are"?

"Ultimately", what excuse is there for doing anything while intoxicated?

"Ultimately", what excuse is there for being intoxicated?

Arthur Brain said:
As long as nobody is adversely affected by you enjoying a drink then there's no crime or anything to get bent out of shape about.
Click to expand...

You alcohol-melon, saying "There's no crime in doing X!" is not an answer to the question, "WHY should doing X not be criminalized?"--"WHY should doing X not be made into a crime?"

If you ever sober up, and you've not yet permanently, entirely destroyed whatever capacity for thinking rationally you may have once had, then perhaps you can get around to trying to think rationally about this question, instead of continuing to get bent out of shape about the fact that you've been chagrined by my asking it, you pathetic, hypocritical sot.
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
annabenedetti said:
You ridicule them because you enjoy being abusive.

"It's why" is just a variation on the abuser's theme of "look what you made me do."
Click to expand...

Here's what you said to ok doser:
annabenedetti said:
You just keep throwing yourself against that wall little buddy. :chuckle:
Click to expand...

Look what ok doser made you say to him. Did you not enjoy saying that to him? Was your laughing smiley merely a typo? Do you not enjoy characterizing those who dissent from you as "throwing themselves against a wall", and calling them "little buddy"? What--about your calling someone whose dissent from/criticism of your ideology triggers you to call him "little buddy"--do you imagine exempts your act of calling him "little buddy" from being correctly characterized as an abusive act?

If ok doser were to call you "little buddy", and were to characterize you, on account of your hostility toward his views, as "throwing yourself against a wall", would you call his doing so, "abusive"? Yes or No?

One thing that must be taken into account is that, as a matter of course, hypocrite snowflakes like yourself never scruple against calling dissent from, and criticism of your irrational, evil worldview, "abuse" and "abusive". Thus, I take it that, when ok doser says he enjoys "being abusive", all he means by that is that he enjoys standing up for truth against the ravings of Nazi leftards like yourself, whose lives are devoted to venomously opposing, and trying to trample down, truth. All he is doing is using the term "abusive" in the sense in which you use it--using it wholly to denote the expression of opposition to your error. In fact, in the same way, my referring to your error by the word "error", may well be, by you, called "abuse"/"abusive", since you love your error, and would never think to call your error "error", as you, naturally, would rather call (and have others call) your error something along the lines of "right thinking" or "being reasonable".
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
7djengo7 said:
Here's what you said to ok doser:


Look what ok doser made you say to him. Did you not enjoy saying that to him? Was your laughing smiley merely a typo? Do you not enjoy characterizing those who dissent from you as "throwing themselves against a wall", and calling them "little buddy"? What--about your calling someone whose dissent from/criticism of your ideology triggers you to call him "little buddy"--do you imagine exempts your act of calling him "little buddy" from being correctly characterized as an abusive act?

If ok doser were to call you "little buddy", and were to characterize you, on account of your hostility toward his views, as "throwing yourself against a wall", would you call his doing so, "abusive"? Yes or No?

One thing that must be taken into account is that, as a matter of course, hypocrite snowflakes like yourself never scruple against calling dissent from, and criticism of your irrational, evil worldview, "abuse" and "abusive". Thus, I take it that, when ok doser says he enjoys "being abusive", all he means by that is that he enjoys standing up for truth against the ravings of Nazi leftards like yourself, whose lives are devoted to venomously opposing, and trying to trample down, truth.
Click to expand...

I enjoy being abusive to posters who troll this site. I admit it.
I enjoy being abusive to people who support evil. I admit it.

I abhor the evil that is in them, the evil that directs them, the evil that drives them. And I understand that they view this abhorrence on my part as abuse. They come to this Christian site expecting to be coddled, expecting to be treated in a manner that is their warped interpretation of Christianity..

And like Anna they whine about it when they get something different from me and others.
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
This is the insanity that America has become:




Insanity because the insane fat cow thinks she is protecting herself and others by wearing a strip of cloth over her face.
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
ok doser said:
This is the insanity that America has become:




Insanity because the insane fat cow thinks she is protecting herself and others by wearing a strip of cloth over her face.
Click to expand...

But, you have to admit, she was more eloquent and articulate in the matter of face-masking, in this video, than have been Arthur Brain, chair, and eider in their posts on TOL.
 
7djengo7

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
ok doser said:
:darwinsm:

She totally encapsulated the best of all of their good points :chuckle:
Click to expand...

I gave up on the idea, but for a second, I thought to try to figure out a way of making a joke about their stonewalling against the questions we asked them, in which I could somehow meaningfully combine 'stonewall' and 'Walmart' into 'stonewalmart'.
 
quip

quip

BANNED
Banned
ok doser said:
I enjoy being abusive to posters who troll this site. I admit it.
I enjoy being abusive to people who support evil. I admit it.

I abhor the evil that is in them, the evil that directs them, the evil that drives them. And I understand that they view this abhorrence on my part as abuse. They come to this Christian site expecting to be coddled, expecting to be treated in a manner that is their warped interpretation of Christianity..

And like Anna they whine about it when they get something different from me and others.
Click to expand...

Wow....look at the little buddy trying his hand at taking the high-road. Good luck with that...and "keep up the good fight", preferably sober.:devil:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top