Personal Freedom vs. Public Welfare

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
So getting oneself drunk should be considered a criminal act? Because it



Since "brain not working right", one's judgement "has the potential to" become impaired, and in his being judgement-impaired he "has the potential to" temporarily lose his inhibition against driving drunk; and so, his inhibition against drunk driving (if he has such an inhibition) being temporarily lost, or overmastered, he "has the potential to" drive drunk......

So, as usual, you're one shallow, lying hypocrite in your reasonless shouting that accident-free drunk driving should be considered a crime against humanity while you sit there and give a green light to getting drunk, and refusing to say that getting drunk should be considered a crime against humanity:

Ironically, this is like watching a slow motion car crash...

:freak:
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Observation isn't emoting

Which is why ok doser did not say that you were engaging in observation (because, had he said so, he'd have been affirming falsehood); but rather, he stated the obvious fact that you were/are/have been all along emoting.

L:freak:L
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Which is why ok doser did not say that you were engaging in observation (because, had he said so, he'd have been affirming falsehood); but rather, he stated the obvious fact that you were/are/have been all along emoting.

L:freak:L

he appears to be totally oblivious to the fool he's making of himself

as per usual :sigh:
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
And so, these tards eagerly embrace any new government edict that they can be convinced reduces risk, whether it is valid or not.

Restrict gun ownership and ban scary guns outright? Guaranteed to reduce risks, so they jump on board!

Shut down the economy, wear masks and hide in your basement? Guaranteed to reduce risks, so, You Bet!

Punish drunk drivers harshly even though no one was harmed? Gubmint sez we'll all be safer, so YES!

Hmm, being called a "tard" by a drink driving dimwit? Priceless! :chuckle:

And then some bizarre and unrelated rant about how recognizing that drink driving is irresponsible and rightfully a crime somehow equates to "embracing any government edict"? Wow, are you drunk right now?

Yes, punish drunk drivers harshly because they're an irresponsible menace on the road and shouldn't be on it.
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
Yes, a scenario used to illustrate a point I was making in a conversation with Chair

That was an admission, not a scenario. You broke the law. Had you been stopped by state troopers a coupla nights ago then you deserved to be charged with a criminal offence because you were driving while drunk. There's no excuse or justification for that. Simple as.
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
another hellbound Christ-rejecter who knows not of which he speaks :sigh:

Hellhound! :devil:

Not too foreboding a fate....we're all fated to hell.....according to one religion or another.

How do you feel about that my hellhound friend?
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
Hmm, being called a "tard" ...

but you are, artie

you are, demonstrably, retarded

not intellectually, not cognitively

you are retarded in your degree of reasoning development

Like a child, you reason based on emotion. Fact based reasoning and logic is a foreign tongue to you. Your reasoning is developmentally delayed, it is stunted, it is retarded, at the level of emotional reasoning. You treat emotions as facts.

And I realize that all this is beyond you, that all it will get in response is more angry emotion :sigh:
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
yes, a scenario that I used to illustrate a point I was making in a conversation with Chair

A "point" that has been thoroughly undermined for the feeble attempt at justifying breaking the law that it was. It wasn't a scenario either. You described an act that you had done so stop being an irresponsible dipstick and only drive while sober.

Otherwise, quit going on about how you're "indwelt with the Holy Spirit".
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
An act that you engaged in that was irresponsible and put other people at risk because you were in no fit state to drive a car.

What you just wrote, here--how is that not a description of simply getting drunk?

"An act that you engaged in[--i.e., the act of getting drunk--]that was irresponsible and put other people at risk because you were in no fit state to drive a car."

But you're the one who encourages people to engage in the act of getting drunk. Not me. I don't drink, nor do I encourage people to drink alcoholic beverages at all; much less do I encourage people to get drunk.

You vicious, lying, hypocrite: Until you come clean and drop your rank hypocrisy of reasonlessly shouting that accident-free, no-harm-causing drunk driving should be considered a crime against humanity by ALSO shouting that getting drunk, in the first place, in and of itself, should equally be considered a crime against humanity, how do you expect your ravings to be taken seriously by rationally-thinking people?

L:freak:L
 

Arthur Brain

Well-known member
What you just wrote, here--how is that not a description of simply getting drunk?

"An act that you engaged in[--i.e., the act of getting drunk--]that was irresponsible and put other people at risk because you were in no fit state to drive a car."

But you're the one who encourages people to engage in the act of getting drunk. Not me. I don't drink, nor do I encourage people to drink alcoholic beverages at all; much less do I encourage people to get drunk.

You vicious, lying, hypocrite: Until you come clean and drop your rank hypocrisy of reasonlessly shouting that accident-free, no-harm-causing drunk driving should be considered a crime against humanity by ALSO shouting that getting drunk, in the first place, in and of itself, should equally be considered a crime against humanity, how do you expect your ravings to be taken seriously by rationally-thinking people?

L:freak:L

Hmm, rationally thinking people wouldn't have equated my posts with an encouragement to go out and get drunk or stay in and get drunk either but rather the emphasis on not driving a car while being so.

So, thanks for playing an' all but you're out of coins.
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
So getting oneself drunk should be considered a criminal act?
<NO ANSWER>

Should getting oneself drunk be considered a criminal act? Yes or No?

If not, then why not, you hypocrite?

L:freak:L

(PS.: Do you like how I've stolen the most powerful debate weapon you have ever had in your arsenal on TOL, and started making it the centerpiece of my LOLZ?)
 

7djengo7

This space intentionally left blank
Hmm, rationally thinking people wouldn't have equated my posts with an encouragement to go out and get drunk or stay in and get drunk

I, being a rationally-thinking person, merely equated your encouragement to go out and get drunk with your encouragement to go out and get drunk; and I equated your encouragement to stay in and get drunk with your encouragement to stay in and get drunk:

If you want to get drunk then stay home with a crate or walk or use public transport to a bar.

Unlike you--frank encourager of drunkenness that you are--what I would say is, "If you want to get drunk, immediately cease from wanting to get drunk, and by all means keep yourself from getting drunk."

Why are you such a self-righteous, lying hypocrite?

L:freak:L
 
Top