ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I don't get the impression that expos4ever has all that much to contribute to a conversation like this - he appears to be a hit-and-run poster.
Personal Freedom vs. Public Welfare
- Thread starter chair
- Start date
I don't get the impression that expos4ever has all that much to contribute to a conversation like this - he appears to be a hit-and-run poster.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
I agree with you about the "run" part of "he appears to be a hit-and-run poster".
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It is, for all of the reasons mentioned throughout. Driving a car while sober has the potential to cause harm but it's not a criminal act for obvious reasons. Many things have a certain risk factor that aren't criminal by the same token. Your "reasoning" seems to be that because you haven't had an accident yet your actions shouldn't be deemed criminal which is bonkers. That's like someone claiming they should be allowed to drive a hundred miles an hour in a built up area without criminal charges until they run over a child or something.
Your position is untenable. If you want to get drunk then stay home with a crate or walk or use public transport to a bar.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
As usual, he's lying; he's pretending that he did not notice the fact you've just pointed out.
7djengo7
This space intentionally left blank
But that's manifestly not what ok doser has been talking about, Professor. Rather, he's been talking about cases where people driving drunk have not caused accidents. Why is it you can't you deal with what ok doser has been talking about, Professor?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I don't.
I want to discuss the degree of justness of a law that seeks to punish me for a behavior or action from which no harm ensues.
You seem like you want to discuss something else.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It's been dealt with all ends up if you can read. What, do you drive around drunk as well or are you not old enough yet?
lain:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
All addressed in my last to you. It's entirely just to punish you for drunk driving whether you cause an accident or not. You're deliberately driving a vehicle while impaired where the risk factor of such occurring has considerably increased. That's why it's a crime. It's simple, straightforward stuff.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
This came out of a discussion that Chair and I were having about being compelled to wear masks. I put forward the following scenario:
I have not worn a mask in April, May, June or July. In the beginning of August I was tested and found to be free of antibodies to the Coronavirus.
My question to Chair was this: Who was harmed by my refusal to wear a mask in April, May, June and July? The answer of course that he was exceedingly reluctant to give was no one. No one was harmed by my refusal to wear a mask.
Just as no one was harmed in the next scenario about driving drunk. Both scenarios were designed to point towards the overarching general question - how just is a law that seeks to punish someone for engaging in an action or behavior from which no harm ensues?
But conceptually this is far beyond the capacity of artie or quip or expos4ever to handle. Instead they must thrash about like children emoting.
eider
Well-known member
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
And yet if I go to the troopers barracks and tell them:
Last night I drove home drunk. Nobody was harmed. I had the road to myself. I was exceedingly careful. I kept my speed under the speed limit and I arrived safely.
They will NOT punish me.
Are they being lax in their duties?
Is it just of them not to punish me?
eider
Well-known member
It's just gobsmacking that anybody needs to think about this kind of stupidity.
But if they or theirs got hurt by a drunk driver, can you imagine the U-Turn ??
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
:rotfl:
I never forgot reading the above.
Amazing!
Another lost soul who will end up in eternal hellfire :sigh:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
My reasoning has been very clearly stated multiple times: A law that seeks to punish me for actions or behaviors from which no harm ensues is unjust.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Of course they're not being lax because you'd need to be caught in the act of driving while drunk before you could be justly charged with an offence.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Your "reasoning" has been refuted and taken apart multiple times. You're engaging in a behaviour that is irresponsible and puts people at risk because you are not in a fit state to be driving a vehicle. Next time you feel so inclined, why don't you drive to the troopers barracks while drunk, explain to them that you've driven while intoxicated but haven't had an accident and see what happens.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
Can you think of any other offense in which you have to be caught in the act before you're charged?
rape?
Theft?
Murder?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Says the guy who claims to be indwelt with the Holy Spirit, gets sozzled in bars and drives home drunk...
:freak:
Still telling that you refuse to answer as to whether your behaviour would be endorsed?
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
This little thing called "evidence"...
Certain crimes can be proven after the fact. Once your blood alcohol levels have fallen below the limit there's no way of proving that you were drunk while driving.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It's bizarre isn't it?