Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Is Mark full of shit when it comes to DUI?

Poll

More accurately, is Mark full of wrong when it comes to his stance on DUI and it's effectiveness of limiting road accidents with restriction enforcement?

Absolutely, he is full of shit.
- 1 (12.5%)
Most likely, he is full of shit.
- 3 (37.5%)
Who is to know these things? I'm Atheist. hahha :)
- 0 (0%)
Who is to know these things? Except god. (for those with exception above)
- 0 (0%)
Most likely, Mark is correct.
- 2 (25%)
Absol-fucking-lutely Mark is correct. WTF is wrong with you? Isn't it just common sense? Stands to reason sort of thing!
- 0 (0%)
Umm.. Option 6 without the attitude!
- 1 (12.5%)
And, Finally, WHO THE FUCK CARES?
- 0 (0%)
I love the state, and worship it's bindings.
- 0 (0%)
What's a DUI?
- 0 (0%)
Why did the chicken cross the road?
- 0 (0%)
WTF is with this poll?
- 0 (0%)
My bet it the maker of this poll is a stoner!
- 1 (12.5%)
Merry Christmas!
- 0 (0%)
Happy New Year!
- 0 (0%)
Happy Holidays!
- 0 (0%)
Bah, humbug..
- 0 (0%)
[is text messaging on their phone right now, please come back later...]
- 0 (0%)
(blank)
- 0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 8


Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Is Mark full of shit when it comes to DUI?  (Read 5247 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Temper

  • FTL AMPlifier Platinum
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Is Mark full of shit when it comes to DUI?
« on: January 02, 2014, 04:52:13 PM »

So yesterday, we embarked on a debate topic I am very opinionated about. First, I resent my elders over this issue. They seem to be pussified in fear of death but condone the active destruction of the good name of people.

To qualify this, I graduated from high school in 2000. Yep, i was somehow luckly to get 3 0's. Yay me. But today I am 31. I haven't kept i touch with all my high school friends. But I can say this, there isn't one that I know, or can think of readily except myself and that is only because i beat my charge, that does not have a DUI on their record. This includes my brother, my best friends, my not so good friends, and my not friends. Each of them has a DUI.

All these people cannot go to Canada, work in many government or prestigious companies, and will carry the shame of conviction for the rest of their life. To this end, Mark should know and understand my words so painfully aware of the impact of forever. My point is, their skies are forever tarnished is the outlook of the future.

That is the carnage. The impact. The cost. It's value in numerical productivity lost is insurmountable. And therefor immeasurable.

Now lets look at the facts, and the true nature of the assertions.

But first, lets setup some explicit statistical maximums.

The subset of a class should follow the same characteristics as it's class. Otherwise the difference is statistically significant. For example, all members of the class Americans must go to school. Out of the American population, x% of it is homosexual. So in any high school the odds are that x% will me homosexual. That does not mean that their are not statistical outliers. In a small high school  the statistical significance may not be effectual. AKA at 8% there may not be a homosexual in a group of 10 or even 20. However, in a school of 1000 if there is a significant deviation it is significant. For example, if the school of 1000 was a catholic school, then it is either that the religion prevents homosexuality or ,more likely, your information is not accurate because the sample is not being honest. But no matter what, the subset should mimic the characteristics of the bigger sample, or you have a difference. In stead of homosexuality, you could replace that with any characteristic, including race, ethnic group, or religion. Like x% of Americans are catholic, so x% of a high school classroom should be catholic.

So, the first question is, what does our population look like?

To answer this we will ask 2 questions: 1) On the daily average, how many people are drunk. 2) On the daily average, how many people die in an automobile.

The first question is going to be factually skewed. This is because there is stigma associated with the affirmative response to the first question.

However, according to this study (http://www.andjrnl.org/article/S2212-2672(12)02048-5/abstract) carried by this newspaper here (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/25/american-alcohol-guidelines-habits_n_2756004.html) -  36% of men and 21% of women consumed alcohol.

So, with http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0884102.html we will normalize these numbers to ((36%*49.2)+(22%*50.8))/100 = 28.8% of Americans should be drunk when they die in an automobile. All things equal.

Luckily (: we have the number of people who have died in autos and when anyone dies - drug testing is mandatory. So all these numbers are concrete. This is also, Mark's "worst case scenario". However, I would rather die in a car then never walk again or use my arms again after getting out of one. But these numbers we have.. anyways

SEE http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx

So according to the government, (i hear an objection, over-ruled!)

In 2011 there were 29,757 fatalities on the road.
In 1994 there were 36,254 fatalities on the road.
Between the years of 1994 and 2011 (17 years), 653,782 people died for an average of 38457.8 people per year.

So it stands to statistical inference, that 28.8% of 38457 or 11,109 people should be drunk.

Yes, I know, times matter, you think. Etc, etc. But that is not your argument. Your argument is getting people who drink off the road will save lives.

So what does FARS at NHTSA say?

If we query 2011, at "Option 3 (Crash / Vehicle / Driver / Precrash / Occupant)" Choose "Condition (Impairment) At Time of Crash" we get:

Under the Influence of Alcohol, Drugs or Medication   6103 out of 44,153 or 13.82% of the drivers in an accident with a fatality were impaired. Now there were:

Not Reported   1342
Unknown if Impaired   7187

But it is clearly statistically significant that people who drive do not do so while impaired.

But let's just look at BAC.


Alcohol Test Result   Total
   
0.00 % BAC   15964
0.01 % BAC   273
0.02 % BAC   231
0.03 % BAC   206
0.04 % BAC   186
0.05 % BAC   186
0.06 % BAC   246
0.07 % BAC   188
0.08 % BAC   312
0.09 % BAC   271
0.10 % BAC   297
0.11 % BAC   367
0.12 % BAC   348
0.13 % BAC   413
0.14 % BAC   396
0.15 % BAC   410
0.16 % BAC   450
0.17 % BAC   404
0.18 % BAC   457
0.19 % BAC   406
0.20 % BAC   409
0.21 % BAC   416
0.22 % BAC   376
0.23 % BAC   307
0.24 % BAC   302
0.25 % BAC   243
0.26 % BAC   202
0.27 % BAC   186
0.28 % BAC   151
0.29 % BAC   121
0.30 % BAC   95
0.31 % BAC   78
0.32 % BAC   49
0.33 % BAC   54
0.34 % BAC   48
0.35 % BAC   32
0.36 % BAC   30
0.37 % BAC   24
0.38 % BAC   12
0.39 % BAC   12
0.40 % BAC   10
0.41 % BAC   9
0.42 % BAC   9
0.43 % BAC   3
0.44 % BAC   2
0.45 % BAC   5
0.46 % BAC   3
0.47 % BAC   2
0.48 % BAC   1
0.50 % BAC   1
0.51 % BAC   2
0.54 % BAC   3
0.59 % BAC   1
0.60 % BAC   1
0.61 % BAC   1
0.63 % BAC   2
0.65 % BAC   2
0.66 % BAC   1
0.74 % BAC   1
Not Reported   945
Test Not Given   23908
AC Test Performed,Results Unknown   1101
Positive Reading With No Actual Value   32
Unknown if tested   1440


Now at the "Legal limit" of 0.08% or more, 7,737 people out of 25,217 "occupants" would be arrested or (30.7%) However, conveniently, there i no data for just the drivers. They include the BAC of all occupants. In fact, there are 52643 occupants but only around 43,000 drivers. So without doing the painful work of normalizing all the data I can easily tell you that being drunk does not give significant rise to the number dead on the road by a vehicle.

Statistically, charging people for a DUI because DUI's cause accidents is just not supported by data. If you move the legal limit to 0.1% (where it once was) then the numbers are worse, at 7154/25217=28.4% which is around my population size. It is also around 2-3 beers etc or what I would call a normal drinker or OUR POPULATION REPRESENTATION!

So I hereby conclude Mark is a statist scum bag :P LOL And he is advocating the hurting of people without benign justification.

He did come up with some good points, like for example, if i swing to hit your face but stop just before impact, there is no victim so there is no crime. This is a clear fallacy for there is clearly a victim, the one who had emotional and psychological distress thrust upon them. So as long as you don't drive around in a car with a big sign that says "HAHAHA I AM DRUNK YOU BETTER WATCH OUT!" then this is not a good analogy.

I of course, await his response (and yours).
« Last Edit: January 02, 2014, 04:57:20 PM by Temper »
Logged

Temper

  • FTL AMPlifier Platinum
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mark full of shit when it comes to DUI?
« Reply #1 on: January 02, 2014, 06:07:08 PM »

Here is the whole breakdown of "condition Impairment at the time of the crash"


Condition (Impairment) At Time of Crash   Total
227
None/Apparently Normal   27865
Ill, Blackout   472
Asleep or Fatigued   723
Walking with a Cane or Crutches   0
Paraplegic Or Restricted To A Wheelchair   4
Impaired Due to Previous Injury   5
Deaf   2
Blind   1
Emotional (depressed, angry, disturbed, etc)   103
Under the Influence of Alcohol, Drugs or Medication   6103
Physical Impairment - No Details   131
Other Physical Impairment   164
Not Reported   1342
Unknown if Impaired   7187
TOTAL   44,329
Logged

freeAgent

  • pwn*
  • FTL AMPlifier
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3660
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mark full of shit when it comes to DUI?
« Reply #2 on: January 03, 2014, 09:09:45 AM »

Why do you expect that people who drink are just as likely as those who don't drink to get in their cars and go for a drive after they've had alcohol?  The first part of your post is all about how the subset should share the characteristics of the entire population or there's something going on to explain the difference.
Logged

Ylisium

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mark full of shit when it comes to DUI?
« Reply #3 on: January 03, 2014, 01:14:01 PM »

I sat in a courtroom and watched a grown man collapse into a ball of tears because he had just murdered two people, a mother and her five year old daughter on the I-5, driving drunk, speeding, and going the wrong way.

A couple of years ago, a young teenaged girl was texting while driving. She didn't see the car directly in front of her stop and violently rear-ended her. What she also didn't see was the mother crossing the street with her two children that the car in front had stopped for. She hit that car so hard it pushed forward and killed one of the the children. Now a family has to deal with the loss of a child and the responsible driver also has to live with unwittingly killing a child.

Recently, at my refinery, a visiting contractor was stupidly sent to his car to sleep off his drunk. (In stead of informing us of the situation) Instead he decided to go to his hotel room 10 miles away. It was around 1 am and so foggy that visibility was reduced to less than 10 feet. He tried to pass a tanker truck, uphill and over a double yellow line. A young girl was driving home that night from work, and was instantly murdered in the head-on collision. The drunk driver lived a little longer and died after at the scene.

I'm no fan of the state and all for you taking responsibility for your actions. I understand that motor vehicle accidents will always occur, after all shit happens. But, when you get behind that wheel knowingly impaired (excessively tired, stoned, drunk, texting etc...) you're knowingly putting other's at risk. No different than me flagging someone with a loaded rifle. If I negligently pull that trigger and kill someone, I own that bad decision.

So, I guess it's cool to rebel against our elders, but if your bad decisions can potentially harm someone, and you're aware of that and still carry on, you're a jerk. This has nothing to do with voluntarism, other than your willing violation of the NAP. Even if all the roads are private, the owners will have standards, and no one wants to deal with drunk drivers. I suspect there will be a free market system (perhaps a modification of the credit score) that takes into consideration your driving habits.

Freedom does not mean freedom from responsibility.
Logged

Temper

  • FTL AMPlifier Platinum
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mark full of shit when it comes to DUI?
« Reply #4 on: January 03, 2014, 04:11:28 PM »

Why do you expect that people who drink are just as likely as those who don't drink to get in their cars and go for a drive after they've had alcohol?  The first part of your post is all about how the subset should share the characteristics of the entire population or there's something going on to explain the difference.

I don't. I am showing there is no correlation between being intoxicated and killing someone in a car. So punishment isn't warranted.
Logged

Temper

  • FTL AMPlifier Platinum
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mark full of shit when it comes to DUI?
« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2014, 04:41:41 PM »

I sat in a courtroom and watched a grown man collapse into a ball of tears because he had just murdered two people, a mother and her five year old daughter on the I-5, driving drunk, speeding, and going the wrong way.

Well, I am pretty sure going the wrong way was the deciding factor. It has always been blatantly illegal. It didn't save them. Now we turned an average mistake, meaning MANY PEOPLE HAVE AND DO MAKE THIS MISTAKE, and turned it into a major life altering event. It's a shame we lost a mother and child but now we lost the driver too. But interestingly, we would not shame the old guy that just couldn't see and got on the wrong side of the road...

A couple of years ago, a young teenaged girl was texting while driving. She didn't see the car directly in front of her stop and violently rear-ended her. What she also didn't see was the mother crossing the street with her two children that the car in front had stopped for. She hit that car so hard it pushed forward and killed one of the the children. Now a family has to deal with the loss of a child and the responsible driver also has to live with unwittingly killing a child.

It's just the COST OF HAVING CARS. If I get hit and killed - just know I pay the cost gladly.

Recently, at my refinery, a visiting contractor was stupidly sent to his car to sleep off his drunk. (In stead of informing us of the situation) Instead he decided to go to his hotel room 10 miles away. It was around 1 am and so foggy that visibility was reduced to less than 10 feet. He tried to pass a tanker truck, uphill and over a double yellow line. A young girl was driving home that night from work, and was instantly murdered in the head-on collision. The drunk driver lived a little longer and died after at the scene.

Seems like the guy passing in a foggy condition was the issue. What does his alcohol level have to do with that? That is not a reaction issue. That's a bullshit "drugs remove your ability to reason" lie. You ALWAYS choose. You and you alone.

I'm no fan of the state and all for you taking responsibility for your actions. I understand that motor vehicle accidents will always occur, after all shit happens. But, when you get behind that wheel knowingly impaired (excessively tired, stoned, drunk, texting etc...) you're knowingly putting other's at risk. No different than me flagging someone with a loaded rifle. If I negligently pull that trigger and kill someone, I own that bad decision.

You knowingly put people at risk, including yourself, ANY TIME YOU GET AROUND A 5000LB OBJECT moving at ANY SPEED.

What you are really saying is I am arbiter god and I will determine based on my intuition what actions are and are not too dangerous.

But the state does not vilify the excessively tired, ill, or "naturally distracted" driver. It is ONLY when the behavior is ALREADY NOT WANTED. So there is the TRUE NATURE. IT IS JUST ANOTHER PUNISHMENT FOR UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIOR.

But there is NO EVIDENCE that being drunk or stoned causes the accident. You point to singular incidents but ignore the overall effects. You can compensate for a deficiency many ways. Like maybe drunks stay off the interstate on average and that makes up for the delayed reaction.
[/quote]

So, I guess it's cool to rebel against our elders, but if your bad decisions can potentially harm someone, and you're aware of that and still carry on, you're a jerk. This has nothing to do with voluntarism, other than your willing violation of the NAP. Even if all the roads are private, the owners will have standards, and no one wants to deal with drunk drivers. I suspect there will be a free market system (perhaps a modification of the credit score) that takes into consideration your driving habits.

"if your bad decisions can potentially harm someone, and you're aware of that and still carry on, you're a jerk." Exactly. I know my elders drank and drove. I KNOW THEY DID. They don't now maybe because they have "grown up" but they DID. And now they are where they are untarnished. But my generation did the same and is damaged now. We are punished for what they did but were not. And it is all for NO GAIN. It has not bettered the roads. Saved one LIFE, or anything else. It costs more then it saves.

"This has nothing to do with voluntarism, other than your willing violation of the NAP." Where is aggression? I mean besides you enforcing your acceptable risk standards on others? You are just making this shit up as you go along. Perverting the principles of NAP to your own ends. Seeing the world at any angle to justify your positions.

" Even if all the roads are private, the owners will have standards, and no one wants to deal with drunk drivers. I suspect there will be a free market system (perhaps a modification of the credit score) that takes into consideration your driving habits." Yep, more bullshit. More control. More manipulation.

Again, you are not proving that DRIVING DRUNK = ACCIDENTS. You are pointing to some examples, making the assumption it must be universal, and then using force on others. AND YES YOU ADVOCATING THIS POSITION IS A USE OF FORCE. It is ABSURD. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I mean if you are right it should be EASY TO PROVE. In fact, I used the government's own data COLLECTED to try to prove these facts. They even manipulated the data, for example they have the data on "Alcohol", "Drugs", and "Medication" impairments of the driver - BUT MYSTERIOUSLY group all 3 into the same category and report that! That can only be done to try to make the problem seem worse than it is.

And I know anyone impared by a MEDICATION with a DOCTOR'S NOTE does not get into any trouble.

Freedom does not mean freedom from responsibility.

This is just bullshit. FREEDOM does mean freedom from your IMPOSED responsibility. And that is what it really is. It is the same with force against smoking in building or any numerous things. It is not that drunks cause accidents - it's that if you are drunk then you BELIEVE there is a chance that it could have been prevented and YOU PROACTIVELY want that chance. So you cause more destruction to try to get it.

I could just as easily find out that WIFI causes cancer or other problems and then march over to your house and demand that you remove your wireless or I will bash you brains in. It is would be the same premise. I have decided that WIFI is a risk without a reward because i don't use the internet. I would be just as wrong as you. This is the same fallacy as what you have. You don't think me socializing and drinking has ANY VALUE TO YOU so it is AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK TO _YOU_.

Well congrats at being a tyrant that pretends he is a priest. You aren't the first nor will you be the last.

--------------------------------------

Your position is sad and inexcusable. Just because it is popular does not exempt you from your OWN RESPONSIBILITY!
Logged

nicfitkid

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mark full of shit when it comes to DUI?
« Reply #6 on: January 03, 2014, 05:14:00 PM »

I completely agree that Mark is full of shit on this issue. His borderline paranoia over the supposed dangers of vehicles are blinding him (and anyone like him) to the realities of the issue. Mark seems to desire that we severely punish drunk drivers because of what could happen if they get behind the wheel, but the fact is that you choose to drive you take the risk. You have a right to travel and freedom to travel, you do not have a freedom FROM bad drivers or a freedom FROM the dangers of traveling. You have an obligation to protect yourself, as it is the only thing that you as an individual can control, any control beyond yourself is using the coercion of the state.

Now, in the current society of govt and "laws", I believe the appropriate response when someone negligently gets in an accident is to gather information and evidence about the person at fault (this can be done with a cell phone on record, calling the police to document the accident and the driver's state of mind, etc. If they're drunk or high or sleepy, etc, take that information down, and present it in a court of law when you bring a civil/criminal case against them (hell, this might even result in some jail time with a manslaughter conviction). The reality here tho is that life is a terribly risky pass time and none of us NONE OF US get thru it alive, so to place arbitrarily high penalties and life destroying sentences on people who engage in behavior that is risky simply because it MIGHT cause an accident is entirely insane; especially when the entire process of DUI helps to enrich the state, hurt otherwise decent people, and allow further encroachment upon our sovereign bodies.

Mark, if you're worried about dangerous vehicles, drive defensively, look for the safest route to your destination by looking up traffic data available, buy a more defensible vehicle (something larger/higher up like an SUV), pay for exceptional auto insurance and health insurance, etc. These are your issues, not mine, and empowering the state to it's own enrichment simply because you have a concern about vehicular accidents is a mistake here.

Here is the world Mark supports all in the name of "safety" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8zYrLJGjM4 People being forced to give up their own sovereign property against their will (yes I own my salivia, breath, blood, etc because I made it in my body, no one has the right to force me to give it up, let alone take it from me unwillingly).
« Last Edit: January 03, 2014, 05:22:27 PM by nicfitkid »
Logged

Ylisium

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mark full of shit when it comes to DUI?
« Reply #7 on: January 05, 2014, 12:55:58 AM »

Quote
I sat in a courtroom and watched a grown man collapse into a ball of tears because he had just murdered two people, a mother and her five year old daughter on the I-5, driving drunk, speeding, and going the wrong way.

Well, I am pretty sure going the wrong way was the deciding factor. It has always been blatantly illegal. It didn't save them. Now we turned an average mistake, meaning MANY PEOPLE HAVE AND DO MAKE THIS MISTAKE, and turned it into a major life altering event. It's a shame we lost a mother and child but now we lost the driver too. But interestingly, we would not shame the old guy that just couldn't see and got on the wrong side of the road...

A couple of years ago, a young teenaged girl was texting while driving. She didn't see the car directly in front of her stop and violently rear-ended her. What she also didn't see was the mother crossing the street with her two children that the car in front had stopped for. She hit that car so hard it pushed forward and killed one of the the children. Now a family has to deal with the loss of a child and the responsible driver also has to live with unwittingly killing a child.

It's just the COST OF HAVING CARS. If I get hit and killed - just know I pay the cost gladly.

Recently, at my refinery, a visiting contractor was stupidly sent to his car to sleep off his drunk. (In stead of informing us of the situation) Instead he decided to go to his hotel room 10 miles away. It was around 1 am and so foggy that visibility was reduced to less than 10 feet. He tried to pass a tanker truck, uphill and over a double yellow line. A young girl was driving home that night from work, and was instantly murdered in the head-on collision. The drunk driver lived a little longer and died after at the scene.

Seems like the guy passing in a foggy condition was the issue. What does his alcohol level have to do with that? That is not a reaction issue. That's a bullshit "drugs remove your ability to reason" lie. You ALWAYS choose. You and you alone.

I'm no fan of the state and all for you taking responsibility for your actions. I understand that motor vehicle accidents will always occur, after all shit happens. But, when you get behind that wheel knowingly impaired (excessively tired, stoned, drunk, texting etc...) you're knowingly putting other's at risk. No different than me flagging someone with a loaded rifle. If I negligently pull that trigger and kill someone, I own that bad decision.

You knowingly put people at risk, including yourself, ANY TIME YOU GET AROUND A 5000LB OBJECT moving at ANY SPEED.

What you are really saying is I am arbiter god and I will determine based on my intuition what actions are and are not too dangerous.

But the state does not vilify the excessively tired, ill, or "naturally distracted" driver. It is ONLY when the behavior is ALREADY NOT WANTED. So there is the TRUE NATURE. IT IS JUST ANOTHER PUNISHMENT FOR UNDESIRABLE BEHAVIOR.

But there is NO EVIDENCE that being drunk or stoned causes the accident. You point to singular incidents but ignore the overall effects. You can compensate for a deficiency many ways. Like maybe drunks stay off the interstate on average and that makes up for the delayed reaction.

So, I guess it's cool to rebel against our elders, but if your bad decisions can potentially harm someone, and you're aware of that and still carry on, you're a jerk. This has nothing to do with voluntarism, other than your willing violation of the NAP. Even if all the roads are private, the owners will have standards, and no one wants to deal with drunk drivers. I suspect there will be a free market system (perhaps a modification of the credit score) that takes into consideration your driving habits.

"if your bad decisions can potentially harm someone, and you're aware of that and still carry on, you're a jerk." Exactly. I know my elders drank and drove. I KNOW THEY DID. They don't now maybe because they have "grown up" but they DID. And now they are where they are untarnished. But my generation did the same and is damaged now. We are punished for what they did but were not. And it is all for NO GAIN. It has not bettered the roads. Saved one LIFE, or anything else. It costs more then it saves.

"This has nothing to do with voluntarism, other than your willing violation of the NAP." Where is aggression? I mean besides you enforcing your acceptable risk standards on others? You are just making this shit up as you go along. Perverting the principles of NAP to your own ends. Seeing the world at any angle to justify your positions.

" Even if all the roads are private, the owners will have standards, and no one wants to deal with drunk drivers. I suspect there will be a free market system (perhaps a modification of the credit score) that takes into consideration your driving habits." Yep, more bullshit. More control. More manipulation.

Again, you are not proving that DRIVING DRUNK = ACCIDENTS. You are pointing to some examples, making the assumption it must be universal, and then using force on others. AND YES YOU ADVOCATING THIS POSITION IS A USE OF FORCE. It is ABSURD. You should be ashamed of yourself.

I mean if you are right it should be EASY TO PROVE. In fact, I used the government's own data COLLECTED to try to prove these facts. They even manipulated the data, for example they have the data on "Alcohol", "Drugs", and "Medication" impairments of the driver - BUT MYSTERIOUSLY group all 3 into the same category and report that! That can only be done to try to make the problem seem worse than it is.

And I know anyone impared by a MEDICATION with a DOCTOR'S NOTE does not get into any trouble.

Freedom does not mean freedom from responsibility.

This is just bullshit. FREEDOM does mean freedom from your IMPOSED responsibility. And that is what it really is. It is the same with force against smoking in building or any numerous things. It is not that drunks cause accidents - it's that if you are drunk then you BELIEVE there is a chance that it could have been prevented and YOU PROACTIVELY want that chance. So you cause more destruction to try to get it.

I could just as easily find out that WIFI causes cancer or other problems and then march over to your house and demand that you remove your wireless or I will bash you brains in. It is would be the same premise. I have decided that WIFI is a risk without a reward because i don't use the internet. I would be just as wrong as you. This is the same fallacy as what you have. You don't think me socializing and drinking has ANY VALUE TO YOU so it is AN UNACCEPTABLE RISK TO _YOU_.

Well congrats at being a tyrant that pretends he is a priest. You aren't the first nor will you be the last.

--------------------------------------

Your position is sad and inexcusable. Just because it is popular does not exempt you from your OWN RESPONSIBILITY!


Yes, you pegged me true! I'm a state loving despotic Marxist-Fascists that would love nothing more than to grow the government to such an extent that we will take care of you from cradle to grave and cover every aspect of your life in-between.

You know your argument is lost when you start to unleash hyperbole and the ad-hominem attacks.

No doubt you actually believe all your drivel. However, I don't know you can reconcile your two completely opposing arguments. Either one is responsible for their actions while driving intoxicated, or they are not, but both cannot be true.

Quote
I don't. I am showing there is no correlation between being intoxicated and killing someone in a car.

That makes about as much sense as saying "People don't kill people, guns kill people".

Yes, alcohol does affect your motor skills. Unless you want to dispute all the scientific, anecdotal and empirical data that says so. With your hindered ability to operate machinery, you become more of a danger on the road. You have poorer hand eye coordination, slower reaction times, poor spacial judgment, poor balance etc. There is a reason why industry typically frowns upon workers who are intoxicated or under the influence of drugs whilst at work. Without even the evil hand of OSHA, most in industry will terminate your employ immediately because you are putting lives at risk, not just your own, but your fellow co-workers.

The same holds true for driving on roads. While you may be more than happy to take the risk of driving on the roads with people who are under the influence, I for one am not happy to risk my life, which is very precious to me, nor that of my family's. Therefore, I support a free market solution to keeping the intoxicated of the road, or at least marking them in such a way as to give me advanced warning of their stupidity. Notice I said free market. The government, no doubt, cannot do this effectively at all, nor should they.

If you end up killing someone because of your bad decision to drink, get drunk and then drive, your punishment (under this current regime and in a free-market system) should be stiffer than if you simply slid on black ice. Same should hold true for those who text, drive when their over-tired and whatever conscious decisions you make that put you behind the wheel while your driving ability is impaired.

And yes, there is a necessity for responsibility in a truly free society. Otherwise, bills don't get paid, people's property won't be respected, terms won't be honored, contracts worthless, freedom lost. But, I think you get that, just the fact doesn't fit neatly into your immature argument about liberty. Liberty isn't libertine. If roads become private, and the owners desire to produce restrictions, you're telling me that you're going to ignore those use restrictions because you think they're being despotic and you are entitled to do whatever the hell you want to? Because there is no necessity for responsibility in a free society. Surely not.

Lastly, just to take a giant shit on your entire argument about alcohol not being a factor in accidents:

Next time you fly, go find your pilot before hand and get him drunk.
Logged

Temper

  • FTL AMPlifier Platinum
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mark full of shit when it comes to DUI?
« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2014, 01:26:22 AM »

Yes, you pegged me true! I'm a state loving despotic Marxist-Fascists that would love nothing more than to grow the government to such an extent that we will take care of you from cradle to grave and cover every aspect of your life in-between.

Yes, I know. It is exactly what you are saying.

You know your argument is lost when you start to unleash hyperbole and the ad-hominem attacks.

What choice do I have? I lay out a debate with facts and figures and get a "well obviously you are wrong" response. It's not a debate. I am asserting a fact with proof i have compiled. You are asserting your opinion. An ad hom is very good in these cases.

No doubt you actually believe all your drivel. However, I don't know you can reconcile your two completely opposing arguments. Either one is responsible for their actions while driving intoxicated, or they are not, but both cannot be true.

Sure they can.. at least in so far as your context. Yes, they are responsible for their actions. BUT their actions do not surmount to what you are contending they do. So it is not a crime or aggression or anything immoral.

Quote
I don't. I am showing there is no correlation between being intoxicated and killing someone in a car.

That makes about as much sense as saying "People don't kill people, guns kill people".

Yes, alcohol does affect your motor skills. Unless you want to dispute all the scientific, anecdotal and empirical data that says so. With your hindered ability to operate machinery, you become more of a danger on the road. You have poorer hand eye coordination, slower reaction times, poor spacial judgment, poor balance etc. There is a reason why industry typically frowns upon workers who are intoxicated or under the influence of drugs whilst at work. Without even the evil hand of OSHA, most in industry will terminate your employ immediately because you are putting lives at risk, not just your own, but your fellow co-workers.

Yes, it affects you ability, but does the handicap actually cause an accident? I am saying no. You are saying "well of course it does".. well if it is so obvious where's the proof?

Put it this way, all driving skills are relative. Say I am a guy trained in stunt driving. So I am way better than you at driving in critical situations. So can I just declare your use of a car is too risky and bar you from driving? It is the same position that you have.

The same holds true for driving on roads. While you may be more than happy to take the risk of driving on the roads with people who are under the influence, I for one am not happy to risk my life, which is very precious to me, nor that of my family's. Therefore, I support a free market solution to keeping the intoxicated of the road, or at least marking them in such a way as to give me advanced warning of their stupidity. Notice I said free market. The government, no doubt, cannot do this effectively at all, nor should they.

Some will - most won't. Trying to stop the ones that do is not worth the damage you do to honest people. On top of that, it is not worth adding a criminal to the rosters who will be driven to crime. And this was an argument solely about the government actions.

If you end up killing someone because of your bad decision to drink, get drunk and then drive, your punishment (under this current regime and in a free-market system) should be stiffer than if you simply slid on black ice. Same should hold true for those who text, drive when their over-tired and whatever conscious decisions you make that put you behind the wheel while your driving ability is impaired.

But there is no proof one thing had ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER. If i am drunk and hit black ice is it now my drunkenness or the black ice that caused it?!

And you still made a "conscious decision" to drive when there might be "black ice" - you seem reckless to me. Let's rope you to the yard arm..


And yes, there is a necessity for responsibility in a truly free society. Otherwise, bills don't get paid, people's property won't be respected, terms won't be honored, contracts worthless, freedom lost. But, I think you get that, just the fact doesn't fit neatly into your immature argument about liberty. Liberty isn't libertine. If roads become private, and the owners desire to produce restrictions, you're telling me that you're going to ignore those use restrictions because you think they're being despotic and you are entitled to do whatever the hell you want to? Because there is no necessity for responsibility in a free society. Surely not.

Road being private will be a huge mistake. Image someone telling you you just can't head north. Because they said so.

Lastly, just to take a giant shit on your entire argument about alcohol not being a factor in accidents:

Next time you fly, go find your pilot before hand and get him drunk.

First, driving is NOTHING like flying. I know because i have 5 hours under my belt. Second, i would MOST CERTAINLY buy the pilot 2 shots of whatever and still get in his plane. If he kills me - it wasn't the two shots that did it.

And, I would definitely smoke weed with a guy while flying.

But flying is WAY WAY WAY WAY more complicated!

Do you have to file your drive plan with a road tracking agency? no
Do you have to coordinate with other drivers using radios and various frequencies? NO
Do you have to operate in 0 visibility conditions only using the heading and speed? NO.
Does you car have a condition where if you just stop you die? NO. At any time in a car you can just slam on the breaks and most likely be very safe. In fact, you should do this if you are somehow blinded. IN A PLANE YOU WILL DIE. You must make approach and land with a good level horizon.

So really you just took a shit on your face. For having no respect for the debate.

So yes. YOU ARE RIGHT..

Let's just run around shooting anyone we think is drunk and driving. It would be more humane.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOU MOUTH IS:

If this is so obvious then you should have crap everywhere showing that alcohol causes X number of crashes per year.

But you can't can ya. Because you are making all sorts of value judgments and enforcing them on others. You have no sense of freedom - you just want to be the one in power.

Taking responsibility is not about taking other people's crap. If i say to you that this is my road or block or hangout and if you come here i will beat you ass. Then when I find you there again someone else cannot tell you to take responsibility for going where you shouldn't have. That is not freedom and it never will be.

Taking responsibility is when you drive drunk, and kill someone, you will never know if, had you not drunk, could you have avoided the person's death.

------------------------------------------------------------------

it's just like the speeding issue. Say the speed limit is 25. You are going 35. A kid runs out in front of you. boom you hit the kid - dead. Now people say well, if you had only been going the speed limit it would have been avoided. Well, it also would have been avoided if you went 40 or 45 because you would have been gone. It would have been avoided if you took an alternative route.

But nothing can guarantee that the outcome would have been ANY DIFFERENT. At 25, you could have glanced down to see the time, the kid runs out and you still hit the kid.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

SO STOP TRYING TO PLAY GOD. MOST PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO GET INTO AN ACCIDENT AS THEY DON'T WANT TO GET HURT. NOTHING CAN BEAT THAT INCENTIVE.

ALL YOU DO IS REMOVE THE INCENTIVE OF NOT WANTING TO GET HURT BY MAKING A SHITTY WORLD WHERE PEOPLE DO SELF DESTRUCTIVE SHIT. SEE EVER INCREASING RATES OF SUICIDE.

Now, if your problem does not care about anything, what are you going to do? the roads are infinitely more dangerous now. Congrats man. You make it better.
Logged

Ylisium

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mark full of shit when it comes to DUI?
« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2014, 01:41:26 PM »

Yes, you pegged me true! I'm a state loving despotic Marxist-Fascists that would love nothing more than to grow the government to such an extent that we will take care of you from cradle to grave and cover every aspect of your life in-between.

Yes, I know. It is exactly what you are saying.

You know your argument is lost when you start to unleash hyperbole and the ad-hominem attacks.

What choice do I have? I lay out a debate with facts and figures and get a "well obviously you are wrong" response. It's not a debate. I am asserting a fact with proof i have compiled. You are asserting your opinion. An ad hom is very good in these cases.

No doubt you actually believe all your drivel. However, I don't know you can reconcile your two completely opposing arguments. Either one is responsible for their actions while driving intoxicated, or they are not, but both cannot be true.

Sure they can.. at least in so far as your context. Yes, they are responsible for their actions. BUT their actions do not surmount to what you are contending they do. So it is not a crime or aggression or anything immoral.

Quote
I don't. I am showing there is no correlation between being intoxicated and killing someone in a car.

That makes about as much sense as saying "People don't kill people, guns kill people".

Yes, alcohol does affect your motor skills. Unless you want to dispute all the scientific, anecdotal and empirical data that says so. With your hindered ability to operate machinery, you become more of a danger on the road. You have poorer hand eye coordination, slower reaction times, poor spacial judgment, poor balance etc. There is a reason why industry typically frowns upon workers who are intoxicated or under the influence of drugs whilst at work. Without even the evil hand of OSHA, most in industry will terminate your employ immediately because you are putting lives at risk, not just your own, but your fellow co-workers.

Yes, it affects you ability, but does the handicap actually cause an accident? I am saying no. You are saying "well of course it does".. well if it is so obvious where's the proof?

Put it this way, all driving skills are relative. Say I am a guy trained in stunt driving. So I am way better than you at driving in critical situations. So can I just declare your use of a car is too risky and bar you from driving? It is the same position that you have.

The same holds true for driving on roads. While you may be more than happy to take the risk of driving on the roads with people who are under the influence, I for one am not happy to risk my life, which is very precious to me, nor that of my family's. Therefore, I support a free market solution to keeping the intoxicated of the road, or at least marking them in such a way as to give me advanced warning of their stupidity. Notice I said free market. The government, no doubt, cannot do this effectively at all, nor should they.

Some will - most won't. Trying to stop the ones that do is not worth the damage you do to honest people. On top of that, it is not worth adding a criminal to the rosters who will be driven to crime. And this was an argument solely about the government actions.

If you end up killing someone because of your bad decision to drink, get drunk and then drive, your punishment (under this current regime and in a free-market system) should be stiffer than if you simply slid on black ice. Same should hold true for those who text, drive when their over-tired and whatever conscious decisions you make that put you behind the wheel while your driving ability is impaired.

But there is no proof one thing had ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE OTHER. If i am drunk and hit black ice is it now my drunkenness or the black ice that caused it?!

And you still made a "conscious decision" to drive when there might be "black ice" - you seem reckless to me. Let's rope you to the yard arm..


And yes, there is a necessity for responsibility in a truly free society. Otherwise, bills don't get paid, people's property won't be respected, terms won't be honored, contracts worthless, freedom lost. But, I think you get that, just the fact doesn't fit neatly into your immature argument about liberty. Liberty isn't libertine. If roads become private, and the owners desire to produce restrictions, you're telling me that you're going to ignore those use restrictions because you think they're being despotic and you are entitled to do whatever the hell you want to? Because there is no necessity for responsibility in a free society. Surely not.

Road being private will be a huge mistake. Image someone telling you you just can't head north. Because they said so.

Lastly, just to take a giant shit on your entire argument about alcohol not being a factor in accidents:

Next time you fly, go find your pilot before hand and get him drunk.

First, driving is NOTHING like flying. I know because i have 5 hours under my belt. Second, i would MOST CERTAINLY buy the pilot 2 shots of whatever and still get in his plane. If he kills me - it wasn't the two shots that did it.

And, I would definitely smoke weed with a guy while flying.

But flying is WAY WAY WAY WAY more complicated!

Do you have to file your drive plan with a road tracking agency? no
Do you have to coordinate with other drivers using radios and various frequencies? NO
Do you have to operate in 0 visibility conditions only using the heading and speed? NO.
Does you car have a condition where if you just stop you die? NO. At any time in a car you can just slam on the breaks and most likely be very safe. In fact, you should do this if you are somehow blinded. IN A PLANE YOU WILL DIE. You must make approach and land with a good level horizon.

So really you just took a shit on your face. For having no respect for the debate.

So yes. YOU ARE RIGHT..

Let's just run around shooting anyone we think is drunk and driving. It would be more humane.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOU MOUTH IS:

If this is so obvious then you should have crap everywhere showing that alcohol causes X number of crashes per year.

But you can't can ya. Because you are making all sorts of value judgments and enforcing them on others. You have no sense of freedom - you just want to be the one in power.

Taking responsibility is not about taking other people's crap. If i say to you that this is my road or block or hangout and if you come here i will beat you ass. Then when I find you there again someone else cannot tell you to take responsibility for going where you shouldn't have. That is not freedom and it never will be.

Taking responsibility is when you drive drunk, and kill someone, you will never know if, had you not drunk, could you have avoided the person's death.

------------------------------------------------------------------

it's just like the speeding issue. Say the speed limit is 25. You are going 35. A kid runs out in front of you. boom you hit the kid - dead. Now people say well, if you had only been going the speed limit it would have been avoided. Well, it also would have been avoided if you went 40 or 45 because you would have been gone. It would have been avoided if you took an alternative route.

But nothing can guarantee that the outcome would have been ANY DIFFERENT. At 25, you could have glanced down to see the time, the kid runs out and you still hit the kid.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

SO STOP TRYING TO PLAY GOD. MOST PEOPLE DO NOT WANT TO GET INTO AN ACCIDENT AS THEY DON'T WANT TO GET HURT. NOTHING CAN BEAT THAT INCENTIVE.

ALL YOU DO IS REMOVE THE INCENTIVE OF NOT WANTING TO GET HURT BY MAKING A SHITTY WORLD WHERE PEOPLE DO SELF DESTRUCTIVE SHIT. SEE EVER INCREASING RATES OF SUICIDE.

Now, if your problem does not care about anything, what are you going to do? the roads are infinitely more dangerous now. Congrats man. You make it better.

Your arguments are all bullshit. If the incentive to not getting in an "accident" is not to get hurt, then it's pretty much as shitty as an incentive as not wanting to lose your license, get arrested, etc... Because they still happen. Moreover, by adding penalties for impaired driving then you're just adding to the disincentives for driving badly, not adding incentives. That's just crazy logic on your behalf.

Also, your tendency toward hyperbole is laughable. I have not ever advocated shooting anyone or even ruin lives (well maybe in a Molyneux fashion). In fact I've made the argument that the government should not be involved and that the free market should find it's own solutions. Not dissimilar being ejected from a bar for being a jerk, or having your privileges of hunting on private property revoked because of unsafe behavior.

Anyhow, you inexplicably acknowledge that alcohol does affect you ability, yet are reticent to assign said impaired ability as a variable in motor vehicle accidents. This stance alone makes it impossible to continue a realistic discussion with you. But, I shall still try... a little.

To use your example:

Q: If an intoxicated person gets into an accident by skidding on some black ice are they at fault because of the alcohol?

A: I can't tell you that without a proper investigation.  Questions need to be answered. How intoxicated were you? How was your driving before hand? Was this particular patch bad? Was there reason to believe that ice would be on the roads (i.e. would the average driver have been surprised by the ice)? Are there witnesses to your driving? What kind of condition is your vehicle in? How are the tires? What kind of experience do you have driving in icy conditions? And probably another dozen questions that I can't think of right at this moment.

I prefer the scientific method of discovery rather than the more dogmatic approach that you've taken. I'll wait and see.

My first recommendation to you is to take a biology course or two to learn that alcohol actually does impair ability and judgement. The mountains of empirical data and studies is almost overwhelming. You may be surprised by what you find. Heck you may even discover that the brain as part of the central nervous system is the key organ in the body for decision making and managing finer motor skills, not, in fact, your heart.

Failing that, conduct a bing search. "Affects of alcohol on the brain".

Read up on that.

Probably first you should conduct a different bing search for "The Human Brain", you'll want to know what that is, first for the rest of this argument to make sense.

Then with your Sherlock-esque deductive reasoning, realize that the brain is in control of your body as you hurtle down the road in 1000+ pounds of steel, rubber, plastics and glass at relatively high velocities, and what the affects of being impaired while doing so, may be.

So let's recap:

Brain is an organ in the body that controls your body's overall actions, including your ability to drive a vehicle.
Alcohol affects the brain in a myriad of ways that include (but not limited too):
  •    Impaired Spatial Judgment
        Impaired Reaction Times
        Impaired Vision
        Impaired Decision Making
        Fatigue
        Memory Loss
        Blacking out
        In some cases, loss of consciousness
        Whisky Dick

In all cases, as supported with empirical evidence / data, these effects become more pronounced with an increased consumption of alcohol over time. Here, a little gift for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_effects_of_alcohol included with all the work cited and peer reviewed studies that you should need.

And another:

http://www.utsa.edu/utsapd/Crime_Prevention/Crime_prevention%20pdf/How%20Alcohol%20Can%20Affect%20Safe%20Driving%20Skills.pdf

And more, a study with cited supporting stueds (i.e. peer reviewed papers) of the affects of alcohol on the brain and driving.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2751645/

And more...(All below deal with either the effects on the brain or effects of driving while intoxicated)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/09/020919065955.htm

And more...

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/dec/13/health/he-drunk13  

And more...

http://bobkeeferlaw.com/library/Dubowski___J_Studies_on_Alcohol__Supplement_10__98_108_1985___Absorption__distribution_and_elimination_of_alcohol___highway_saf.pdf

And more...

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/HS809028/index_.htm

And more...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hup.470070205/abstract

And I'm not even barely scratching the surface of information out there, or empirical data that supports the scientific consensus' claim that impaired driving due to the effects of alcohol is a significant variable in certain motor vehicle accidents. If you're serious about maintaining an honest position, you should do your own due diligence.

No doubt you'll just ignore anything that anyone posts because of your own agenda driven dogma. Hopefully, someone else will see this exchange and not come to the conclusion that it's okay to drink and drive because of your unreasonable, illogical and irresponsible posits. So have at it, call me a statists (then disagree with me when I call for a withdraw of the state from providing and managing roads - how does that work?), shout in all caps, resort to your ad hominems and continue to spew your emotional scientifically unsupported postulations (i.e. bullshit). Also, I gave your argument a fair shake and actually did look for evidence to support your claim that alcohol is not a variable in motor vehicle accidents, that's what a responsible person does. I always maintain an open mind and have actually argued myself into support of opposing view-points. Again an honest and responsible person will do that. Any evidence that supports your claim ~ Peanuts.

Look at that, I did all that w/o shouting.

P.S.

Have fun with your trolling, buddy in your other thread.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 01:46:23 PM by Ylisium »
Logged

Temper

  • FTL AMPlifier Platinum
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mark full of shit when it comes to DUI?
« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2014, 03:44:05 PM »

Your arguments are all bullshit.

EXCELLENT REBUTTLE. It's your best yet.

If the incentive to not getting in an "accident" is not to get hurt, then it's pretty much as shitty as an incentive as not wanting to lose your license, get arrested, etc... Because they still happen. Moreover, by adding penalties for impaired driving then you're just adding to the disincentives for driving badly, not adding incentives. That's just crazy logic on your behalf.

There's my sexy statist talking now. Hey baby. What's do you say? My logic is crazy for saying that to keep one's own life is the ultimate incentive? Oh, you are going to do something to someone to illicit the behavior that you want while that person doesn't care about his own life? What is that? If someone doesn't care about their own life and therefore, ANYTHING, how are you going to incentivise them to do ANYTHING?!

Also, your tendency toward hyperbole is laughable. I have not ever advocated shooting anyone or even ruin lives (well maybe in a Molyneux fashion). In fact I've made the argument that the government should not be involved and that the free market should find it's own solutions. Not dissimilar being ejected from a bar for being a jerk, or having your privileges of hunting on private property revoked because of unsafe behavior.

Yeah, it sounds like you just want your OWN state, not really a FREE STATE, because really you do not trust people at all - not even do you trust people to act in their own interest. So, you can never get a free state because you are lacking the basic foundation of such a thing.

Anyhow, you inexplicably acknowledge that alcohol does affect you ability, yet are reticent to assign said impaired ability as a variable in motor vehicle accidents. This stance alone makes it impossible to continue a realistic discussion with you. But, I shall still try... a little.

No it doesn't. And you understand this, I will point it out from your OWN question later. One does not necessarily cause the other unless you can prove it. It is impossible to prove unless there is data in the aggregate to demonstrate how important the "milliseconds caused by intoxication are actually needed to drive safely". You just demand that they are, and you want them for your own safety, and again, of course, you do not VALUE SOMEONE ELSE HAVING A GOOD TIME PARTYING AND DRINKING. (CAPS for EMPHASIS, not yelling)

To use your example:

Q: If an intoxicated person gets into an accident by skidding on some black ice are they at fault because of the alcohol?

A: I can't tell you that without a proper investigation.  Questions need to be answered. How intoxicated were you? How was your driving before hand? Was this particular patch bad? Was there reason to believe that ice would be on the roads (i.e. would the average driver have been surprised by the ice)? Are there witnesses to your driving? What kind of condition is your vehicle in? How are the tires? What kind of experience do you have driving in icy conditions? And probably another dozen questions that I can't think of right at this moment.

See all you really want to do is make value judgments for others. Now you are implying that you should be able to punish people for "substandard tires" and a "crappy car"..

Hi STATIST. It's nice to see the REAL YOU hiding in a crowd of FREE THINKERS you are a cancer.


I prefer the scientific method of discovery rather than the more dogmatic approach that you've taken. I'll wait and see.

No you don't. You prefer your own rule. And you use things inappropriately to try to strengthen your position.

My first recommendation to you is to take a biology course or two to learn that alcohol actually does impair ability and judgement. The mountains of empirical data and studies is almost overwhelming. You may be surprised by what you find. Heck you may even discover that the brain as part of the central nervous system is the key organ in the body for decision making and managing finer motor skills, not, in fact, your heart.

I have taken biology. In HS and in College. That would be a waste of time. I have drank 1000's of times and drove home drunk 100's of those times. I have a lot of the info i need.

Again, I give you that ALCOHOL CAUSES IMPAIRMENT. BUT I DO NOT GIVE YOU IMPAIRMENT CAUSES ACCIDENTS. Those are two separate topics for debate. You are merging them in a fallacy you proclaim is truth.

Failing that, conduct a bing search. "Affects of alcohol on the brain".

Why that is not in debate here. The debate is DOES DRUNK DRIVING CAUSE ACCIDENTS. That will not answer this question.

Read up on that.

I will read up on something when you actually produce something of substance to this debate.

Probably first you should conduct a different bing search for "The Human Brain", you'll want to know what that is, first for the rest of this argument to make sense.

Then with your Sherlock-esque deductive reasoning, realize that the brain is in control of your body as you hurtle down the road in 1000+ pounds of steel, rubber, plastics and glass at relatively high velocities, and what the affects of being impaired while doing so, may be.

None of this proves it causes accidents. Plus if i have a higher reaction time "sober" are you then going to bar me from driving? Or is it only when people have a better reaction and choose not to use it when driving (such as being drunk)? Where does this hatred of your fellow man originate? Why are you so hell bent on controlling people when you can't?

So let's recap:

Brain is an organ in the body that controls your body's overall actions, including your ability to drive a vehicle.
Alcohol affects the brain in a myriad of ways that include (but not limited too):
  •    Impaired Spatial Judgment
        Impaired Reaction Times
        Impaired Vision
        Impaired Decision Making
        Fatigue
        Memory Loss
        Blacking out
        In some cases, loss of consciousness
        Whisky Dick

All those things happen WITHOUT ALCOHOL. All those qualities are variance anyways. Joe driving drunk at a .15 BAC could perform better than Bill in all those categories even if Bill has a BAC of 0.0000.

You are just making value judgments and imposing them on others. You have no sense of freedom or anything close to it.

In all cases, as supported with empirical evidence / data, these effects become more pronounced with an increased consumption of alcohol over time. Here, a little gift for you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_effects_of_alcohol included with all the work cited and peer reviewed studies that you should need.

That does not mean it causes accidents while driving. PEOPLE COMPENSATE FOR DEFICIENCIES AS THEY DO NOT WANT TO DIE.

This article does not claim driving drunk causes accidents. Funny.

And another:

http://www.utsa.edu/utsapd/Crime_Prevention/Crime_prevention%20pdf/How%20Alcohol%20Can%20Affect%20Safe%20Driving%20Skills.pdf

It's like you wrote this. It says what IMPAIRMENT IS.. big deal. DOES IMPAIRMENT CAUSE ACCIDENTS.. well you are just supposed to make that logical leap.

And more, a study with cited supporting stueds (i.e. peer reviewed papers) of the affects of alcohol on the brain and driving.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2751645/

CONCLUSION
In summary, we replicated and significantly extended our earlier fMRI results revealing different activation dynamics for multiple regions during a simulated driving task. We used two complementary image analysis techniques to investigate alcohol-related changes in temporal dynamics of the driving circuitry at two dosage levels compared to placebo. We report five crucial networks including orbito-frontal/anterior cingulate, fronto-temporal, primary/secondary motor, cerebellar, and the resting state networks as being modulated by alcohol in a dose-related manner. Additionally, a conventional GLM analysis captured a significant dose-dependent response in areas including the amygdala and parahippocampus. Further, we found consistent behavioral changes while driving intoxicated supporting our imaging results. Our results demonstrated that speed and white line crossing errors mediated the fronto-basal ganglia-temporal (green) component involvement across alcohol dosages. Overall, our findings might imply a significant impairment in attention, cognitive, goal direction, motor planning and emotional/working memory related functional capabilities while driving under the influence of alcohol.

Well COLOR ME CORRECTED that some state run program spent $100,000's to say "might imply" something.

And more...(All below deal with either the effects on the brain or effects of driving while intoxicated)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/09/020919065955.htm

"The study's bottom line: Even if you've consumed very little alcohol, your decision-making skills are hampered more than you realize and the results could be deadly considering that nationally, 38 percent of all traffic deaths involve alcohol. In Texas, the rate is a staggering 49 percent, which leads the nation."

Well's that just bullshit. The FARS database has all those values, and I posted them above. They are NO WHERE NEAR 38% so someone has done some "quantitative adjustments" to get their position to be statistically represented. (AKA they changed the data to show the problem they wanted to show.)

And more...

http://articles.latimes.com/2004/dec/13/health/he-drunk13  

Again, this study only go so far as to say ALCOHOL IMPAIRS DRIVING - NOT THAT IMPAIRED DRIVING CAUSES ACCIDENTS. Those are two different things. People can compensate for deficiencies.

And more...

http://bobkeeferlaw.com/library/Dubowski___J_Studies_on_Alcohol__Supplement_10__98_108_1985___Absorption__distribution_and_elimination_of_alcohol___highway_saf.pdf

Again, this study only go so far as to say ALCOHOL IMPAIRS DRIVING - NOT THAT IMPAIRED DRIVING CAUSES ACCIDENTS. Those are two different things. People can compensate for deficiencies.

And more...

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/pub/HS809028/index_.htm

Again, this study only go so far as to say ALCOHOL IMPAIRS DRIVING - NOT THAT IMPAIRED DRIVING CAUSES ACCIDENTS. Those are two different things. People can compensate for deficiencies.

And more...

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hup.470070205/abstract

"It is concluded that moderate doses of alcohol (resulting in BACs of 0-05 to 0-08 g/100 ml) can produce significant deficits in perceptual and motor skills related to driving a vehicle."

So can the human condition. Some people just naturally have abilities that make them better drivers than others. That does not mean that people with a intellectual disability, say a 60 IQ, cannot drive a car safely. There is just NOT THAT MUCH TO DRIVING.

And I'm not even barely scratching the surface of information out there, or empirical data that supports the scientific consensus' claim that impaired driving due to the effects of alcohol is a significant variable in certain motor vehicle accidents. If you're serious about maintaining an honest position, you should do your own due diligence.

No there isn't and you haven't PROVIDED ANY. You have proven that people who drink get drunk. Congrats, that was NEVER AT ISSUE. I have done my DUE DILIGENCE and then some. This is an argument i have debated many for many of years.

No doubt you'll just ignore anything that anyone posts because of your own agenda driven dogma. Hopefully, someone else will see this exchange and not come to the conclusion that it's okay to drink and drive because of your unreasonable, illogical and irresponsible posits. So have at it, call me a statists (then disagree with me when I call for a withdraw of the state from providing and managing roads - how does that work?), shout in all caps, resort to your ad hominems and continue to spew your emotional scientifically unsupported postulations (i.e. bullshit). Also, I gave your argument a fair shake and actually did look for evidence to support your claim that alcohol is not a variable in motor vehicle accidents, that's what a responsible person does. I always maintain an open mind and have actually argued myself into support of opposing view-points. Again an honest and responsible person will do that. Any evidence that supports your claim ~ Peanuts.


"No doubt you'll just ignore anything that anyone posts because of your own agenda driven dogma."

No this is describing you. I layed out a few scenarios that you ignored because they don't fit into your position. Namely,

If I am a trained stunt car driver, can I declare your untrained nature is a undue risk to my safety and bar you from driving?

"So have at it, call me a statists (then disagree with me when I call for a withdraw of the state from providing and managing roads - how does that work?)"

You wanting to replace the state with something like the state that just operates in your favor makes you a statist.

"shout in all caps"

Only done for EMPHASIS...

"resort to your ad hominems and continue to spew your emotional scientifically unsupported postulations"

THEN WHAT THE FUCK IS ALL THE DATA AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE? That you can't EVEN begin to dissect and tear down.

"Also, I gave your argument a fair shake and actually did look for evidence to support your claim that alcohol is not a variable in motor vehicle accidents, that's what a responsible person does. I always maintain an open mind and have actually argued myself into support of opposing view-points. Again an honest and responsible person will do that. Any evidence that supports your claim ~ Peanuts. "

No you didn't. You don't even know how. You looked for "Does alcohol cause drunkenness studies".. But impairment DOES NOT NECESSARILY equate to accidents.

For the same reason that people of differing abilities can drive on the road safely then people of differing BAC can drive on the road safely.

So nice try. What are you the wounded soldier now? Should we give your position credence because we pity you now? Is this how you debate?

Let's just stick to the FACTS.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 03:50:15 PM by Temper »
Logged

Ylisium

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mark full of shit when it comes to DUI?
« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2014, 06:35:20 PM »

Again not really worth my time to respond, but I shall one last time.

You have acknowledged that alcohol causes impairment. That's really all I need for anyone to  see, because the average person will understand that driving while impaired is not an ideal situation and can cause accidents. There is a reason why there is safe driving practices. Unless you believe that there should never be any kind of standards while behind the wheel? Part of that is being stone cold sober, well rested and w/o undue distractions. Deplete those variables you'll start increasing your likely-hood of getting in an accident.

Some of your statements are completely off the wall. You want me to prove a negative, essentially. I can point you to a plethora of statistics that assign reasons to accidents. However, according to your argument, you simply won't believe them. One study can explain an accident as a result of weather, no fault to the driver, and that very same study will say it was a result of intoxication. You may believe one, but certainly not the other, which makes it impossible to show you anything as proof. You're essentially asking me to prove to you that thunder is the sound of lightning and not the two different phenomenon happening simultaneously...sometimes.

Your stunt driver scenario I missed, but it's still doesn't mean anything. If you're an expert stunt driver, by extension that means that the rest of us are probably basically competition drivers. Every facet of life has those people are basically competent at a task or a skill and those whom are experts. If I need someone to mow my lawn, I hire a kid who's pretty good at it and won't mess up my lawn or kill himself in the process. He's basically qualified. If I want my entire property re-landscaped, I'm going to hire someone who's better than most. An expert. I can repair my bicycle. But, if I want to make some major overhauls I'm going to the bike shop to talk to an expert. That fact does not take away from my ability to conduct basic repair.

So as a stunt driver, you'll already know that you're better as a driver, but you don't need your expert skills to drive to the store to pick up some milk an eggs. Someone who's basically qualified and competent as a driver can do that. You'd only have an argument if I said that I wanted do some stunt driving for the afternoon just for the hell of it, w/o any expert qualifications.

Your links at the top are fine, but your inferences are flawed.

Just because a section of the populace drinks, that does not directly translate to the number of drivers on the road, nor those who are driving while intoxicated, nor those who are in accidents. Apples and chairs comparison. By pulling out fatalities only does not create an accurate representation of the detriments of driving while intoxicated. Many people drink during the day, some won't drive that day or not while they have an elevated BAC. So right from the start most of your assumptions are flawed.

And I'll bite, when you used "impaired" in the OP, does that just include alcohol and drugs, or is that for all kinds of impairments? e.g. Vision problems, sickness, fatigue, inattentiveness etc? because if not, then I'll wager that the vast majority of accidents correlate with those who were driving without the full faculties and attention needed for safe driving. Which just further illustrates my point, and the blatantly obvious, that driving while impaired (whatever the impairment) increases your chances for an accident. This central fact, is beyond me why you cannot understand this.

I've driven while high on LSD. I can tell you that I was impaired. Anyone who says I wasn't is a bold faced liar. And the blocks that I drove before I parked and called a friend to come get me, was the longest scariest drive I've ever driven in my life. Because it was difficult for me to do while high! I was very lucky not to have been caught or worse hurt myself, my passenger or someone else. It was a stupid stupid thing to do that I never did again. Am I a hypocrite when I tell my son (eventually) to pay full attention and be completely sober when you drive, absolutely not. I have experience and he has the benefit of learning from my mistakes...goes back to your ridiculous argument about our elders (you and I are about the same age.)

On statism:

Me - I want a free market solution to the issue. I don't have all the answers, which I'll freely admit. However, I like the idea of road privatization. Perhaps, I pay a user fee for sober roads, and you go ahead and pay for your anything goes roads. Maybe it's only limited to certain corridors, but I have a choice to use which roads that I wish, and get to avoid most of your irresponsible behavior on my way to the store. You don't have to use my roads, not unless you want to and are willing to comply. But, you still have options of your own and no one is sending you to prison, fining you, or shooting you.

You - You don't want private roads because you're entitled to go north. Therefore, you want the state to manage the road system. Therefore you're willing to have the state rob from me in order to pay for your road system. You also don't want to give me the choice to get the hell off the same road as your irresponsible self. You want me to risk my life, driving the same roads with you. You're using force, because the implication is that I cannot build or buy into a alternate safe private road system, yet I still have to use roads in order to go to work, shop etc. You've eliminated competition and freedom of choice.

So exactly who's the statist???

A bit on decorum:

My first post in this thread was rather benign. You were certainly welcome to challenge me. However you immediately flew into the ad hominems. This is the internet, so it's expected that I'll run across trolls every now and then. However, acting like you are, like an angry, self-important, entitled prima donna, precludes you from making persuasive arguments. Rather than engaging people, you're just preaching in an echo chamber and turning anyone off of your message, and unfortunately the message of liberty. Basically, no one likes a bully.

Edit:

You argue that ruining someone's life w/ DUI charges doesn't provide incentive enough to not drive while intoxicated as is evidenced by the recidivism rate.

I agree!

You then argue that preserving one's on life will be incentive enough to prevent people from driving while intoxicated. But if the recidivism rate is exactly the same as above (presumably, because we're talking about the same subset of people), then you're logic is flawed.

Because if recidivism is an indicator of a flawed incentive in one case, it should be an indicator of a flawed incentive in the other.

Flawed logic, failed argument. ie Bullshit argument.

Okay, now I'm done. Have fun with your echo chamber!

I'm going to go post some T/A for p-guy...maybe find some common ground.




« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 06:53:01 PM by Ylisium »
Logged

Ylisium

  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 129
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mark full of shit when it comes to DUI?
« Reply #12 on: January 05, 2014, 06:39:41 PM »

AWESOME THREAD!!

  but what i  found funny was 
"""Quote from: Ylisium on Today at 08:41:26 AM
Your arguments are all bullshit."""

Troll much Yemin???. hahahahahaahahahah


AND THEN HE WAS PROOVEN WRONG  HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHH

I disagree. A troll would say, "Your argument is bullshit" and leave it at that.

My first line in the thread was "Your argument is bullshit" then I laid out a lenghthy rebuttal as to why.

And he didn't prove anything, other than that he agrees that intoxication causes impairment. Now, it's up to you to believe or not believe that impairment introduces extra risk while driving.

A troll, would certainly call out a fellow poster in a namely titled thread. Both of you sound very angry. Should chill a bit, perhaps.

Logged

Temper

  • FTL AMPlifier Platinum
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mark full of shit when it comes to DUI?
« Reply #13 on: January 05, 2014, 07:28:15 PM »

Dude WHO is trolling? You are just ignoring the debate completely. The point is DOES IMPAIRMENT CAUSE ACCIDENTS. And again, you can't answer it.

Again not really worth my time to respond, but I shall one last time.

Oh, so lay out your argument as you are so noble and I a lunatic crazy nutcase crazy not worth you time but you are such a team player you are going to make the expense anyways.

Yes, you debate SO HONORABLY. You will find i return you condescension with equal condescension. SO TOUGH SHIT.

You have acknowledged that alcohol causes impairment.

Yes.. and?

That's really all I need for anyone to  see, because the average person will understand that driving while impaired is not an ideal situation and can cause accidents. There is a reason why there is safe driving practices. Unless you believe that there should never be any kind of standards while behind the wheel?

This is where you moved from DEBATE to YOUR OPINION. More examples of less than ideal situations not punished:
  • Bad weather
  • Varying ability to see (my vision is better than yours)
  • Angry driving
  • lack of maintenance

Part of that is being stone cold sober, well rested and w/o undue distractions. Deplete those variables you'll start increasing your likely-hood of getting in an accident.

SAYS WHO? This is what YOU HAVE TO PROVE TO MAKE AS A POSITIVE STATEMENT. You are not being forced to prove a double negative you are being forced to prove YOUR DIRECT STATEMENTS.

You are making the assertion that A) one can dedicate complete attention to driving for any period of time. and B) drunkenness causes enough of a distraction TO BE THE MAJOR CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT. These cannot be just "taken for granted" as "truth" because it makes sense to you.

Some of your statements are completely off the wall. You want me to prove a negative, essentially.

No I am not. I am wanting you to BACK YOUR CLAIM, "THAT DRUNK DRIVING" "CAUSES ACCIDENTS". That is your claim. NOW BACK IT THE FUCK UP OR SHUT UP.

I can point you to a plethora of statistics that assign reasons to accidents.

You can? But you just don't? And where do these conclusions which make the basis of the numbers used to compile the "statistics" come from?

However, according to your argument, you simply won't believe them. One study can explain an accident as a result of weather, no fault to the driver, and that very same study will say it was a result of intoxication. You may believe one, but certainly not the other, which makes it impossible to show you anything as proof. You're essentially asking me to prove to you that thunder is the sound of lightning and not the two different phenomenon happening simultaneously...sometimes.

What? They are nothing the like. Thunder is an effect of the displacement of oxygen at rapid speed based on the lighting's heat.This is a scientific process that can be measures, proven, and recreated.

You, on the other hand, are saying ALCOHOL CAUSES IMPAIRMENT. DRIVING IMPAIRED IS NOT IDEAL. SO DRIVING DRUNK CAUSES ACCIDENTS. It simply does not makes sense no matter HOW POPULAR THE NOTION IS.

Your stunt driver scenario I missed, but it's still doesn't mean anything. If you're an expert stunt driver, by extension that means that the rest of us are probably basically competition drivers. Every facet of life has those people are basically competent at a task or a skill and those whom are experts. If I need someone to mow my lawn, I hire a kid who's pretty good at it and won't mess up my lawn or kill himself in the process. He's basically qualified. If I want my entire property re-landscaped, I'm going to hire someone who's better than most. An expert. I can repair my bicycle. But, if I want to make some major overhauls I'm going to the bike shop to talk to an expert. That fact does not take away from my ability to conduct basic repair.

So as a stunt driver, you'll already know that you're better as a driver, but you don't need your expert skills to drive to the store to pick up some milk an eggs. Someone who's basically qualified and competent as a driver can do that. You'd only have an argument if I said that I wanted do some stunt driving for the afternoon just for the hell of it, w/o any expert qualifications.

EXACTLY.. and a DRUNK DRIVER could very well be competent enough to drive. NO SEE YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT. You are saying I am sober so I AM MORE COMPETENT. That is just not true.

Your links at the top are fine, but your inferences are flawed.

And you can explain WHY right?!?!!?

Just because a section of the populace drinks, that does not directly translate to the number of drivers on the road nor those who are in accidents.

No shit. So my point was most people do not get into accidents and KILL PEOPLE while drunk. And that is FLAWED WHY?!?!

Apples and chairs comparison. By pulling out fatalities only does not create an accurate representation of the detriments of driving while intoxicated. Many people drink during the day, some won't drive that day or not while they have an elevated BAC. So right from the start most of your assumptions are flawed.

WHAT?! You are literally claiming BOTH SIDES OF THE SAME COIN. First, you say that DRINKING causes impairment. Driving while impaired is not ideal. So Driving while impaired causes accidents.

Then you say that my data showing that drunk driving is not a problem BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF DRIVERS DRIVING DRUNK WHILE IN A FATAL ACCIDENT IS LESS THEN THAT OF THE POPULATION, is an flawed assumption!?

AND WHO IS TROLLING?!

And I'll bite, when you used "impaired" in the OP, does that just include alcohol and drugs, or is that for all kinds of impairments? e.g. Vision problems, sickness, fatigue, inattentiveness etc? because if not, then I'll wager that the vast majority of accidents correlate with those who were driving without the full faculties and attention needed for safe driving. Which just further illustrates my point, and the blatantly obvious, that driving while impaired (whatever the impairment) increases your chances for an accident. This central fact, is beyond me why you cannot understand this.

NO IT DOESN'T. And the DATA SHOWS THE REASON FOR IMPAIRMENT! There is a FUCKING TABLE with VALUES next to TYPES OF IMPAIRMENT. I posted it above. You apparently CANNOT READ.

" then I'll wager that the vast majority of accidents correlate with those who were driving without the full faculties and attention needed for safe driving"

THE DATA IS RIGHT THE ABOVE.. IT DOES NOT SHOW THIS.

I've driven while high on LSD. I can tell you that I was impaired. Anyone who says I wasn't is a bold faced liar. And the blocks that I drove before I parked and called a friend to come get me, was the longest scariest drive I've ever driven in my life. Because it was difficult for me to do while high! I was very lucky not to have been caught or worse hurt myself, my passenger or someone else. It was a stupid stupid thing to do that I never did again. Am I a hypocrite when I tell my son (eventually) to pay full attention and be completely sober when you drive, absolutely not. I have experience and he has the benefit of learning from my mistakes...goes back to your ridiculous argument about our elders (you and I are about the same age.)

"Am I a hypocrite when I tell my son (eventually) to pay full attention and be completely sober when you drive"

Yes, ABSOLUTELY you are a hypocrite... it is not like you didn't know BEFORE you did what you did what COULD HAPPEN. Your EXPERIENCE did not add to the base of knowledge.

On statism:

Me - I want a free market solution to the issue. I don't have all the answers, which I'll freely admit. However, I like the idea of road privatization. Perhaps, I pay a user fee for sober roads, and you go ahead and pay for your anything goes roads. Maybe it's only limited to certain corridors, but I have a choice to use which roads that I wish, and get to avoid most of your irresponsible behavior on my way to the store. You don't have to use my roads, not unless you want to and are willing to comply. But, you still have options of your own and no one is sending you to prison, fining you, or shooting you.

Yeah, so you advocate that people should be able to own roads and the means of travel and then you offer to give people the power behind that ability.

Also, the roads are public now.. so how would one take stake to something that is now public?

How AM I IRRESPONSIBLE?! I DO NOT EVEN DRINK AT ALL ANYMORE.

Ok so you are just a complete windbag and you are trying to tear down my character. So fuck you.

You - You don't want private roads because you're entitled to go north. Therefore, you want the state to manage the road system. Therefore you're willing to have the state rob from me in order to pay for your road system. You also don't want to give me the choice to get the hell off the same road as your irresponsible self. You want me to risk my life, driving the same roads with you. You're using force, because the implication is that I cannot build or buy into a alternate safe private road system, yet I still have to use roads in order to go to work, shop etc. You've eliminated competition and freedom of choice.

So exactly who's the statist???

You are.

A bit on decorum:

My first post in this thread was rather benign. You were certainly welcome to challenge me. However you immediately flew into the ad hominems. This is the internet, so it's expected that I'll run across trolls every now and then. However, acting like you are, like an angry, self-important, entitled prima donna, precludes you from making persuasive arguments. Rather than engaging people, you're just preaching in an echo chamber and turning anyone off of your message, and unfortunately the message of liberty. Basically, no one likes a bully.

No it wasn't. You completely ignored all the work i did and posted a bunch of unsupported bullshit. But that was ok cause it commonplace. The argument you make is made all the time exactly the same way. It goes like this:

DUH, drunk driving causes accidents.. DUH..

You never made an argument you made assertions. I do not respect opinions. So yes I gave you the same disrespect you gave me by ignoring the evidence i had and the work i did with nonsense you wrote.

You argue that ruining someone's life w/ DUI charges doesn't provide incentive enough to not drive while intoxicated as is evidenced by the recidivism rate.

I agree!

See here is the problem. YOU JUST READ WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR. I never said that. I SAID WHAT MORE INCENTIVE COULD THERE BE BUT SOMEONE'S LIFE OR THEIR EVERYTHING?>!

And you equate that to this bullshit? And I am trolling?!

WTF

You then argue that preserving one's on life will be incentive enough to prevent people from driving while intoxicated. But if the recidivism rate is exactly the same as above (presumably, because we're talking about the same subset of people), then you're logic is flawed.

WHAT?! HOW CAN THERE BE MORE THAN SOMEONE'S EVERYTHING>! WTF WORLD ARE YOU IN?

IF ONE DOES NOT CARE ABOUT THEMSELVES WHAT CAN YOU INCENTIVISE?!?

What are you going to go after their families?! You are just absurd.

Because if recidivism is an indicator of a flawed incentive in one case, it should be an indicator of a flawed incentive in the other.

What?! So if someone keeps trying to commit suicide you are going to what? lock them to a bed there they cannot harm themselves creating a world where ANYONE would want to kill themselves?

You escalation is scary. One thing is sure you are not into freedom. You just want to be in control of others.

Flawed logic, failed argument. ie Bullshit argument.

What is? What you wrote? I think so.

Okay, now I'm done. Have fun with your echo chamber!

Thank god you are going away. You make no argument. Only assertions. Those you do make ignore what a person has made for the opening debate. But yet somehow you are not required to follow the debate - you can just spam their post and disrespect what they are trying to do. Yet, you are honorable and trying to "play nice" but me calling you out of your REAL BEHAVIOR is rude, disrespectful and "off putting"?

GOOD. Stop spreading your nonsense. If you have a REAL DEBATE make it or SHUT THE FUCK UP.

I'm going to go post some T/A for p-guy...maybe find some common ground.

Great. Make your grand exit as the lone honorable adjunct that is working so tirelessly to right the world but how you can't continue because your honor has been.. blah blah blah

YOU ARE COMPLETELY FULL OF SHIT MAN. YOU DISRESPECT PEOPLE THEN CLAIM YOU HAVEN'T. You are nothing but bullshit.
Logged

Temper

  • FTL AMPlifier Platinum
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 107
    • View Profile
Re: Is Mark full of shit when it comes to DUI?
« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2014, 07:38:37 PM »

AWESOME THREAD!!

  but what i  found funny was  
"""Quote from: Ylisium on Today at 08:41:26 AM
Your arguments are all bullshit."""

Troll much Yemin???. hahahahahaahahahah


AND THEN HE WAS PROOVEN WRONG  HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHH

I disagree. A troll would say, "Your argument is bullshit" and leave it at that.

My first line in the thread was "Your argument is bullshit" then I laid out a lenghthy rebuttal as to why.

And he didn't prove anything, other than that he agrees that intoxication causes impairment. Now, it's up to you to believe or not believe that impairment introduces extra risk while driving.

A troll, would certainly call out a fellow poster in a namely titled thread. Both of you sound very angry. Should chill a bit, perhaps.



CHILL A BIT???? YEAH OK,  W/E  


This is just part of Ylisium demeaning people. See now I am angry so my argument is flawed. He is full of this kind of elitist condescension. This way he can control the debate, claim he discredited the argument, and that I was just impossible to debate anymore - without actually DOING ANYTHING except parroting the standard position that "OBVIOUSLY drunk driving causes accidents.."
« Last Edit: January 05, 2014, 08:00:23 PM by Temper »
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Free Talk Live
| |-+  General
| | |-+  Is Mark full of shit when it comes to DUI?

// ]]>

Page created in 0.03 seconds with 37 queries.