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.