13
   

The Long Expected Next Phase In DUI Law Is HERE

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2013 01:26 pm
@firefly,
I COULD choose to do that, but I choose not to do it because I judge it to be an unreasonable trunkation of the good life.

Your mileage may vary....
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2013 01:33 pm
@hawkeye10,
New circumstances require re-evaluation of societal rules.

The new circumstance is the ability to easily propel two tons of metal at 80 miles per hour.



I'm sorry, but the desire of the minority to risk the well being of the majority is not a compelling argument.

If you want to be able to drink and drive, then go buy a closed course racetrack. I will fully support your right to drink as much as you want, and drive as fast as you want, if you are on private land with no access by the general public.

If you're on a public roadway, constructed by the government and paid for by taxes, then you are obligated to follow the rules of the road.
firefly
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2013 01:40 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I choose not to do it because I judge it to be an unreasonable trunkation of the good life.


If your idea of the "good life" is being to able to drive drunk, you're a pathetic mess.

You want to drink, go right ahead, but arrange for alternate transportation when you do that.

hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2013 01:57 pm
@firefly,
your right to demand anything of me ends where the law ends. then we will see. lots of $110 seatbelt tickets have me wearing a seatbelt. they are also a major motivator in my determination to see to it that government power is massively reduced. is this a win for the police state?
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2013 02:00 pm
@DrewDad,
so you are arguing that the majority wants 0.00 or even .05 BAC DUI laws? do you have any evidence to support that claim?
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2013 02:19 pm
@hawkeye10,
In addition to being unable to interpret statistics, your reading comprehension appears to be sub-par.

I don't recall having stated a preference on BAC levels, so I don't need to support a claim about them.
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2013 02:23 pm
@DrewDad,
My "claim," although I'd call it an "observation," is that you're happy to accept the benefits of being in a law-abiding society right up to the point where you find the laws personally inconvenient, at which point you throw a tantrum.

You're a textbook case of narcissistic personality disorder.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2013 02:40 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

In addition to being unable to interpret statistics, your reading comprehension appears to be sub-par.

I don't recall having stated a preference on BAC levels, so I don't need to support a claim about them.

now you are playing dumb...you made the claim that my BAC views are outside the majority opinion, yet you have not presented any evidence to support that claim nor has anyone else. I dont mind taking the radical opinion, in fact I often do, however I dont think my DUI LAW views are radical at all.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2013 02:46 pm
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

My "claim," although I'd call it an "observation," is that you're happy to accept the benefits of being in a law-abiding society right up to the point where you find the laws personally inconvenient, at which point you throw a tantrum.

You're a textbook case of narcissistic personality disorder.

this could be a fun tangent to this thread but I wonder why we are seeing so many attempts to get away from talking about DUI law. could it be that several people here are trying to promote what they know is the weaker argument? being a slave to political correctness often leads to this uncomfortable place.

sometimes being devoted to the herd mentality sucks.
DrewDad
 
  3  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2013 02:52 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
I wonder why we are seeing so many attempts to get away from talking about DUI law.

I think it's tacit agreement that you're just kind of a douche, and there's no point in trying to have a rational conversation with you.
firefly
 
  4  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2013 03:48 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
I wonder why we are seeing so many attempts to get away from talking about DUI law...

Man, are you clueless. Laughing

You're the one who doesn't want to talk about the DUI laws, or the reduction in alcohol-related auto accidents, injuries, and deaths, when the legal driving limit was lowered to a BAC level of .05 in other countries--a legal limit even you admit would save lives.

Instead, you go on and on about the alleged social benefits of drinking, absurdly predicting a "melt-down" of society if the legal driving limit was lowered to .05, and coming up with flimsy and unacceptable excuses for not arranging for alternate transportation after drinking.

You want to talk about drinking, and not responsible driving. You want to talk about how much you like to drink, and why you need to drink, and how it's inconvenient for you to make other arrangements to get home after you've been drinking. You don't want to talk about alcohol's impairing effect on driving and accident avoidance abilities--which is the reason for DUI laws. Because you don't care about the risks you take when drinking and driving, you think everyone else should put up with the risks you pose to them, when you get behind the wheel in an impaired state, so you can enjoy your idea of "the good life".

And, as part of your alcohol promotion campaign, you think any one who advocates a legal BAC level below .08 is either "a puritan" or is trying to bring back prohibition.

I wonder why you're making "so many attempts to get away from talking about DUI law"?



ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2013 06:33 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
is this a win for the police state?


it's a win for the collective
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2013 06:34 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
being devoted to the herd mentality sucks.


you either like the results of being in a collective or you don't

you don't get to pick and choose when you're in the collective
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2013 06:59 pm
@firefly,
continuing to hear no arguement for reducing the legal BAC limit other than the agreed "it will save lives on the road" and the not agreed "**** people who want to have a drink or three and drive" I will assume for the moment that there are no better arguments. the case for .05 BAC is thus very weak. this appears to be garden variety American intolorance of those who chose to live other than how we do. if so .05 laws have no chance, as too many people like to drink and too much of the economy revolves around drinking.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2013 07:15 pm
@hawkeye10,
we did hear "it can be avoided", which is irrelavant to law in a rights based society and thus must be ignored as ignorant speach.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2013 07:26 pm
@hawkeye10,
we have heard "it is not reasonable" which could possibly matter, however drinking while navigating the roads after drinking has always been considered a reasonable practice with in limits, the burden of proof that it is no longer concidered reasonable is on those who make the claim. based up surveys I have seen and the people I have talked to this bar is far beyond reach.
0 Replies
 
firefly
 
  3  
Reply Thu 23 May, 2013 07:33 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
the case for .05 BAC is thus very weak

That's because you don't value saving human lives, or reducing the number of alcohol-related auto accidents and the injuries and property damage they cause. Your main priority seems to be drinking, and drinking without wanting to be bothered by having to arrange alternate transportation in the event your drinking goes over the legal driving limit.

That's no reasoned or rational argument against lowering the legal limit to .05. It's simply an ego-centric statement of your own selfish preferences and your own lack of interest in either responsible driving, or making the roads safer for everyone.

Don't think you've won an argument you haven't even participated in. Your self-centered, and adolescent whining, about intrusions on what see as the "good life" of drinking and driving--and your outrageous, and adolescent, sense of entitlement, about how you should be allowed to abuse the privilege of driving, by being able to do so, even when impaired--do not constitute participation in meaningful discussion of the topic, let alone winning any sort of argument.

The case for a .05 legal BAC level isn't weak at all. Eventually, I think that we will institute that level. At the moment, all it is is a recommendation from the NTSB, and a very very recent recommendation to boot. Give it time.

And, when DrewDad said this about you...
Quote:

I think it's tacit agreement that you're just kind of a douche, and there's no point in trying to have a rational conversation with you.

he hit the nail on the head.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 09:43 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

working to prevent the society from melting down by allowing relatively cheap pressure release mechanisms is the cost effective choice from an economists point of view. dont assume that science agrees with your puritanism.....


In my opinion, society would be enhanced if people could learn to release stress/pressure without the aid of chemical intervention, be it alcohol, pills, etc. And, while it might be "cheap" for the individual, there are businesses that are profiting greatly from the inability to release stress without the aid of chemical intervention.

I am not trying to change your mind, since I understand that alcohol is very much part of a large segment of society when it comes to socializing.

In fact, let me put my foot up on my "play" bar foot railing, so I can talk, while assuming a macho pose. Boy, that feels good. [Foofie, calls to an imaginary bar friend, "Hey, how 'ya doin' there. Haven't seen you in a long time."]

0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 24 May, 2013 09:56 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

...alcohol has been one of the main go to's for thousands of years...it is hard to argue with its record. the history of prohibition is but a few logs on the fire.


Yes. The Vikings had a very long word to describe getting totally drunk before they attacked coastal villages in Britain or Ireland.

Some Russian peasants got totally drunk on Easter before deciding to riot in the nearby Jewish village.

The New England villages that were quiet villages by the mid-1700's got rid of nearby Native Americans through the murderous efforts of some really drunken "Indian fighters."

"Firewater" (aka, alcohol) was used by white man to make the Native Americans belligerent enough to have an excuse to call in the military.

The British Navy in earlier centuries were thought to exist on rum (aka, alcohol) and "buggery" by some historians.

Drinking alcohol is just one more reason for Islam to think the west is debauched.

hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Sun 26 May, 2013 01:49 am
@Foofie,
the West has been kicking Islams ass for 1000 years....at some point they should wonder why.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/24/2021 at 07:25:34