The DUI punishment Debate

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

That's the biggest kicker for me.

If they would let me choose where my tax dollars go, I would put most of it into jails. I think we need massive prisons, where we can put people for life, have them raise their own crops, and never worry about them again. We waste too much money on education, where it has been shown over and over that throwing money at kids will never make them enjoy learning, or break their genetic barriers.

Less schools, more prisons. And no, I am not joking or being sarcastic.


Exactly. NOT just tougher sentences. THat helps, yes, being tougher on crimes is all well and good, but prisons ALWAYS suffer from overcrowding, and in the end, vicious offenders walk early EVERY FUCKING DAY because of this. Courts cant handle all this shit, and often, to avoid these problems, theyll hand down stiff suspended sentences to avoid hearing the gripes from their local govt. branches bitching about crowded prisons and jails.

I was arrested for aggrivated assault years ago, as a very small personal example. They dropped the charge from a felony to a simple assault because, a lawyer told me, they didnt have room in jail for me. Not prison, which I wouldve gone to. But the local jail. So they dropped the charge, and I got a suspended 30 day sentence. No shit.

More prisons...bigger prisons...


That girl. She looks so gorgeous too, for a kid. What a fucking waste.

And of course, its racial biased. It goes both ways, certainly, but in this case, its clear.

If it were five white guys on a black girl, it would be nationwide. I believe that anyway.

[Athena]

More prisons...bigger prisons...



We could lessen the problem substantially by creating penalties for victimless crimes that don't include jail/prison sentences.

Look at just DUIs, for example. Jails are full of DUI offenders, even if they caused no actual damage. Fuck that...Take their license, fine the shit out of them, but don't throw them in jail. In some states, if you rack up enough DUIs, it becomes a felony charge that qualifies you for prison. Ridiculous.

The same should go for drug manufacturers, dealers and users. Imagine the space we could open up by making the penalties financial. Furthermore, the regulations on prison labor should be lessened significantly. Many states (like mine) have regulations that mandate state-run prison labor only. That's bullshit. Privatise it. Let the prisoners pay their way through the profits that result from cheap labor. Eliminate the tax payer burden AND give inmates legitimate skills they can use upon reintegration.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

We could lessen the problem substantially by creating penalties for victimless crimes that don't include jail/prison sentences.

Look at just DUIs, for example. Jails are full of DUI offenders, even if they caused no actual damage. Fuck that...Take their license, fine the shit out of them, but don't throw them in jail. In some states, if you rack up enough DUIs, it becomes a felony charge that qualifies you for prison. Ridiculous.

I'll disagree on the DUI. Its easy for me to say, because I dont drink much at all, but when someone drives drunk, they're putting lives at risk, and the statistics on DUI related deaths are high. Now--someone who smokes WEED? Definitely. Someone who wants to fuck up their OWN lives is different, and I can agree with you there wholeheartedly. But driving on a road drunk, to me, should earn you jail time. Have I done it? Absolutely, when I was younger. But I dont think its ridiculous that eventually someone has to serve prison time if theyre a habitual DUI offender. If they get CAUGHT that many times, imagine how many times theyre doing it when they DONT get caught. Its playing russian roulette with other lives. Take their driving privileges away permanently, and send them away for awhile.

The same should go for drug manufacturers, dealers and users.

I disagree here again, darling. It's certainly not cut and dry here, and it's depending on what, I guess....if you grow pot plants, so be it. Fines. Whatever. But coke, meth....those manufacturers should be sent to prison. Dealers? Are you kidding me? Send them away. Hard drugs, that is. I don't want my little girl dating some piece of shit that deals meth, crack or such...and then get hooked on it herself.

Users can be debated, and if a law was proposed that fined them, or penalized them in some manner, then so be it. I could stand behind that.

Imagine the space we could open up by making the penalties financial. Furthermore, the regulations on prison labor should be lessened significantly. Many states (like mine) have regulations that mandate state-run prison labor only. That's bullshit. Privatise it. Let the prisoners pay their way through the profits that result from cheap labor. Eliminate the tax payer burden AND give inmates legitimate skills they can use upon reintegration.

Now youre making sense, A. This would go towards actually REHABILITATING the prisoners as well. Give them a sense of self worth. Excellent ideas, regardless of whether I agree with them all or not.

[Athena]

I'll disagree on the DUI. Its easy for me to say, because I dont drink much at all, but when someone drives drunk, they're putting lives at risk, and the statistics on DUI related deaths are high. Now--someone who smokes WEED? Definitely. Someone who wants to fuck up their OWN lives is different, and I can agree with you there wholeheartedly. But driving on a road drunk, to me, should earn you jail time. Have I done it? Absolutely, when I was younger. But I dont think its ridiculous that eventually someone has to serve prison time if theyre a habitual DUI offender. If they get CAUGHT that many times, imagine how many times theyre doing it when they DONT get caught. Its playing russian roulette with other lives. Take their driving privileges away permanently, and send them away for awhile.

Sorry...You will never convince me that someone should spend time in prison because, theoretically, they *could* have caused damage. Prison is for people who DO cause damage.

And, no, it's not playing "Russian roulette" with other lives. .08BAC is the legal limit, yes? But drivers at this BAC aren't responsible for a very big chunk of fatal accidents...Roughly 5% of the intoxicated drivers who cause fatal accidents have such a low BAC. The percentage spikes only when you get to BACs at or in excess of a .19BAC. THOSE people are playing roulette.

MADD, which was once a respectable organisation, has turned into a raving, neo-prohibition organisation that purposely distorts numbers to paint drunk driving to be a much bigger problem than it really is. I'm not defending drunk driving...I'm imploring you to not be ruled by fear. The numbers are available. Do the math and you will see that drunk driving is a heavily exaggerated problem. Stephen Beck explains it well. (http://www.sunjambooks.com/DAMMbaclevelshtml.html)

I disagree here again, darling. It's certainly not cut and dry here, and it's depending on what, I guess....if you grow pot plants, so be it. Fines. Whatever. But coke, meth....those manufacturers should be sent to prison. Dealers? Are you kidding me? Send them away. Hard drugs, that is. I don't want my little girl dating some piece of shit that deals meth, crack or such...and then get hooked on it herself.

You're letting emotions dictate your argument. I appreciate your perspective; it must be hard having a kid to think about in these terms, but really...

Chris Rock once said in one of his stand ups something along the lines of "No one was ever sold drugs when they weren't thinking about getting high." I've been offered drugs NUMEROUS times. I never bought them unless that's what I had set out to do. It was never like, "Hmmm...you know, I wasn't planning on it but...What the hell." Drug dealers don't push drugs on people. The crack dealer who gives it out for free the first time to get people hooked is LARGELY urban myth. People pursue the dealers and manufacturers...NOT the other way around. That's what makes the crime victimless.

Don't want your little girl dating a meth dealer and getting hooked? Raise her right. It really is just that simple in the vast majority of cases. We shouldn't be locking victimless criminals away because people *might* fail as parents. As is painfully apparent, our current drug laws AREN'T SAVING ANYONE. These laws don't even make a DENT in usage rates. Furthermore, countries that decriminalise don't tend to see increases in usage, which further substantiates my point.

Think about alcohol. It's highly addictive and more dangerous (in terms of overdosing) the first time out than lots of illegal drugs. But when a person sells it to a minor, they aren't locked up, they're fined. Why shouldn't it work the same way for other drugs?

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Sorry...You will never convince me that someone should spend time in prison because, theoretically, they *could* have caused damage. Prison is for people who DO cause damage.

Well thank goodness most do, because there are real live threats out there, and when something threats, preventative measures aint a bad thing.

And, no, it's not playing "Russian roulette" with other lives.

What!? The fuck it isnt. Have you ever driven drunk? Well I have, and I dont recall much of it. And argue the STATS all you want, or the misconceptions OF the stats, but drunk driving kills people.

.08BAC is the legal limit, yes? But drivers at this BAC aren't responsible for a very big chunk of fatal accidents...Roughly 5% of the intoxicated drivers who cause fatal accidents have such a low BAC. The percentage spikes only when you get to BACs at or in excess of a .19BAC.

When you play RR, you have a 1/6 chance of killing yourself. A 5/6 chance of nothing happening. THe chances are small. Its the SAME here....you're saying because the likelihood is small, it's not? You revel in logic, Athena, I know this, its what makes you gifted in so many areas. THis is not good logic.

Driving Under the Influence--In any way, shape, or form, is wreckless, and playing russian roulette. Different people take to alcohol differently, so smaller percentages may affect different people adversely.

THOSE people are playing roulette.

They all are. And thank GOd, thats why there are prison sentences for habitual offenders.

MADD, which was once a respectable organisation, has turned into a raving, neo-prohibition organisation that purposely distorts numbers to paint drunk driving to be a much bigger problem than it really is. I'm not defending drunk driving...I'm imploring you to not be ruled by fear. The numbers are available. Do the math and you will see that drunk driving is a heavily exaggerated problem.

Im not concerned with the math, or MADD. I believe that drunk drivers should go to a fucking cell if they cant stop. And if they kill people, vehicular manslaughter is too light.



You're letting emotions dictate your argument. I appreciate your perspective; it must be hard having a kid to think about in these terms, but really...

Woah now. Watch it. I dont like that last sentence. Its condescending, and ridiculous. So people with children cant think objectively anymore? Youre telling me anyone with kids are disqualified on having objective opinions of drug dealers?

Funny shit.

Chris Rock once said in one of his stand ups something along the lines of "No one was ever sold drugs when they weren't thinking about getting high."

Number one, I dont give a fuck what Chris Rock said. He's a comedian.

Number two, I said hard drugs.

I've been offered drugs NUMEROUS times. I never bought them unless that's what I had set out to do.

Perhaps YOURE letting your emotions get involved? You've used before, so would that make YOU biased? ;)

It was never like, "Hmmm...you know, I wasn't planning on it but...What the hell." Drug dealers don't push drugs on people. The crack dealer who gives it out for free the first time to get people hooked is LARGELY urban myth.

LMAO. Dont forget my brother used to be a cokehead. Im not completely ignorant on the matter. And the free samples are a myth? Are you fucking kidding me?

People pursue the dealers and manufacturers...NOT the other way around. That's what makes the crime victimless.

Thats fine by me. So lets put the dealers away, and those who pursue crack and coke will have to find some other way to fuck their lives up. Like, maybe....alcoholism?

Don't want your little girl dating a meth dealer and getting hooked? Raise her right. It really is just that simple in the vast majority of cases. We shouldn't be locking victimless criminals away because people *might* fail as parents.

Failure as a parent is subjective. Did yours fail? You've used. Of course they didn't.

Parents dont have to be FAILURES if their kids use drugs. Mine were ok. As you know, I got into MAD fucking trouble for years, and I made my own choices. I grew up in a loving household. Their unconditional love and relentless pursuit of getting me OUT of it is the only thing that saved me, otherwise Id be dead. Ive been shot in the head, I should be anyway. BUt they were NOT failures. THey were pillars in my life, even when I was doing my best to fuck it up.

As is painfully apparent, our current drug laws AREN'T SAVING ANYONE.

Stop it. Its not black and white, so really, STOP fucking painting it that way, please. :D Arent saving ANYONE? Those are concrete terms, and its bullshit. Yes they do. They arent saving the world, theyre flawed as everloving HELL, but YES...THEY...DO.

These laws don't even make a DENT in usage rates. Furthermore, countries that decriminalise don't tend to see increases in usage, which further substantiates my point.

Decriminalize which ones? Recreational drugs? Pot? Im for that, I still think its a magnificent medicinal drug, and I think people die who dont need to because of stiff pencil pushing motherfuckers...but coke? Meth? Heroin? FUcking please.

Think about alcohol. It's highly addictive and more dangerous (in terms of overdosing) the first time out than lots of illegal drugs. But when a person sells it to a minor, they aren't locked up, they're fined.

You can actually go to jail for selling alcohol to a minor, or providing it. Im all for changing the laws for the age in which one can purchase it....

Why shouldn't it work the same way for other drugs?

Im fine with doing that with certain ones.

[Athena]

Well thank goodness most do, because there are real live threats out there, and when something threats, preventative measures aint a bad thing.

Jesus...You're being thick. My point on DUI legislation is that, at a certain point, it FAILS to PREVENT ANYTHING. Jail sentences have not reduced drunk driving rates. Those rate dropped when we began fining and revoking licenses. Anything more dramatic we've done since has failed to do anything but create revenue for the state.


What!? The fuck it isnt. Have you ever driven drunk? Well I have, and I dont recall much of it. And argue the STATS all you want, or the misconceptions OF the stats, but drunk driving kills people.

And? Driving PERIOD kills people. Does drunk driving increase the odds? A bit...Depends heavily on just how drunk you are. Of course, fucking with the radio, talking on a cell phone or talking to passengers increases those risks as well.

I'm not saying we should decriminalise it, I'm saying that jail is draconian for an offense that resulted in no damage.

When you play RR, you have a 1/6 chance of killing yourself. A 5/6 chance of nothing happening. THe chances are small. Its the SAME here....you're saying because the likelihood is small, it's not? You revel in logic, Athena, I know this, its what makes you gifted in so many areas. THis is not good logic.

Driving Under the Influence--In any way, shape, or form, is wreckless, and playing russian roulette. Different people take to alcohol differently, so smaller percentages may affect different people adversely.

You obviously fail to recognise logic, here. "Chances are small" and "chances are amazingly minute" are vastly different degrees. We're talking 1/6 versus 1/150,000 (or more). Is there risk involved? Sure. But the level of risk IS focal, here.

Im not concerned with the math, or MADD.

And you DARE lecture ME about logic? That's offensive coming from someone who openly and intentionally ignores the facts.

I believe that drunk drivers should go to a fucking cell if they cant stop.

Why? What purpose does it serve?

And if they kill people, vehicular manslaughter is too light.

Then rail against THAT. But don't unreasonably punish people because, in a small percentage of cases, it could eventually turn into that and you don't think that gets sentenced sufficiently...

Woah now. Watch it. I dont like that last sentence. Its condescending, and ridiculous. So people with children cant think objectively anymore? Youre telling me anyone with kids are disqualified on having objective opinions of drug dealers?

Funny shit.

Can they? Yes. Are you currently? No. And no, it wasn't condescending. I've just heard many a parent claim that having a child is license to have no factual basis for an argument. That happens to be what you're doing here. If you want me to assume objectivity, build an argument using evidence, not hypothetical futures involving your daughter.


Perhaps YOURE letting your emotions get involved? You've used before, so would that make YOU biased? ;)

Yeah, I've used before. I've never gone to jail for using, though, nor do I use anymore...But you're still a parent, aren't you? ;)

LMAO. Dont forget my brother used to be a cokehead. Im not completely ignorant on the matter. And the free samples are a myth? Are you fucking kidding me?

Free samples is a different matter. Did your brother get himself hooked, or did a free sample get him hooked? No one ever offered offered me free drugs unless I was already using them.

Thats fine by me. So lets put the dealers away, and those who pursue crack and coke will have to find some other way to fuck their lives up. Like, maybe....alcoholism?

Who are you to dictate how a person can and can't fuck their life up?

Failure as a parent is subjective. Did yours fail? You've used. Of course they didn't.

A kid who has occasionally used is a LOT different than the kid in your example who dates a meth dealer and winds up addicted. I'd say that, in most cases, a scenario like that does reflect on parenting.

Stop it. Its not black and white, so really, STOP fucking painting it that way, please. :D Arent saving ANYONE? Those are concrete terms, and its bullshit. Yes they do. They arent saving the world, theyre flawed as everloving HELL, but YES...THEY...DO.

The U.S. has a higher usage rate than countries with softer drug policies, in some cases. Don't give me this "if it just saves one..." bullshit. That's not how legislation works. If we institute drug laws in order to significantly lessen usage, but it doesn't, why do we have them? There should always be a logical, factual basis for our legislation. Things should not be outlawed SIMPLY because the moral majority doesn't like them, which is the only fucking reason you've given me, here.

...but coke? Meth? Heroin? FUcking please.

Give me a good reason. You know, something more than your opinion.

You can actually go to jail for selling alcohol to a minor, or providing it. Im all for changing the laws for the age in which one can purchase it....

Can you? Sure. You *can* go to jail for all sorts of silly things. But prosecutors rarely pursue jail time in minor cases of contributing. If some kid asks me to go into a store and get him a case of beer, I'll maybe get arrested and get the shit fined out of me, but it's unlikely I'll be jailed. If I give that same kid some MDMA tabs? I'm going to jail...Even though liquor is more dangerous.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Jesus...You're being thick.

I understand Ive upset you, but try to fucking refrain from saying stupid shit to try to piss me off, please. :p

My point on DUI legislation is that, at a certain point, it FAILS to PREVENT ANYTHING.

Stop...saying...anything. Youre dealing in black and white, absolutes, and thats fucking thick.

Jail sentences have not reduced drunk driving rates. Those rate dropped when we began fining and revoking licenses.

WTF!? See, in NC, we fine and take away licenses before we start putting them away. So habitual offenders should just be able to what, after they show they cant learn their lesson? Keep driving? No, they're playing with people's lives. I know you don't think so, but they are. And its more than an opinion, and Ill show below, although I love the jab you levee, about just an opinion. No sykopaf syndrome there, huh? :rolleyes: :o


And? Driving PERIOD kills people.

DONT get stupid on me. If you even WANT to act like that, Im not even going to bother responding to anymore of this childish bullshit. Were not debating whether driving is an offense, were debating whether drunk drivers should get prison time. Please dont resort to the lowest denominator of tactics with me, A. Youre way too good for that shit.

Does drunk driving increase the odds? A bit...

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

The 16,885 fatalities in alcohol-related crashes during 2005 represent an average
of one alcohol-related fatality every 31 minutes.

Scroll down to the graph as well.

More than a BIT there, Athena. :D

Depends heavily on just how drunk you are. Of course, fucking with the radio, talking on a cell phone or talking to passengers increases those risks as well.

Lofl. I dont know how to respond to that nonsense.

I'm not saying we should decriminalise it, I'm saying that jail is draconian for an offense that resulted in no damage.

Really? People make THREATS all fucking day to people, and get arrested for shit resulting in no damage. We have Homeland Security arresting people to make sure there is no damage. We take preventative measures all day long to make sure there is no damage. This is no different. Draconian???

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15698847/

If we gotta get a little "draconian" to prevent more of these? So be it.

You obviously fail to recognise logic, here. "Chances are small" and "chances are amazingly minute" are vastly different degrees. We're talking 1/6 versus 1/150,000 (or more). Is there risk involved? Sure. But the level of risk IS focal, here.

Only thing is, youre logic is flawed. The percentage of alcohol related fatalities per state is very high. I would assume you'll counter it by saying thats only a percentage in the small percentage of driving fatalities period. The percentage isnt that small, and again---The 16,885 fatalities in alcohol-related crashes during 2005 represent an average
of one alcohol-related fatality every 31 minutes.


And you DARE lecture ME about logic? That's offensive coming from someone who openly and intentionally ignores the facts.

Openly ignores the facts? Youre bringing up fucking CHRIS ROCK to me as a fucking SOURCE! Hell yeah Im gonna ignore that. ANd no, I dont care how looney MADD is. It has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, whether DUI offenses should come with prison sentences! Thats like someone debating civil liberties for someone, and another person bringing up what loons the ACLU have turned into. Dont talk to me about logic, when yours is so terribly flawed.

Why? What purpose does it serve?

Is that a rhetorical question? If not, its obvious. To keep drunk drivers off the goddamned streets. :o


Then rail against THAT. But don't unreasonably punish people

Fuuucking A. Unreasonably? Thats your opinion, and thats ALL it is, because mine is different, and thats why were having this discussion.

because, in a small percentage of cases, it could eventually turn into that and you don't think that gets sentenced sufficiently...

So then lets not convict anyone. Because.....

ANd do you realize how many murder sentences from years ago are found out to be bullshit thanks to DNA evidence? So should we abolish the courts all together? The system sucks, its flawed as hell. Doesnt mean we abandon the laws in place, that serve purpose, even if the people involved in prosecuting, or whathaveyou, cannot.

Can they? Yes. Are you currently? No. And no, it wasn't condescending.

It was to me. You disqualified me.

I've just heard many a parent claim that having a child is license to have no factual basis for an argument.

I doubt that. :cool:

That happens to be what you're doing here. If you want me to assume objectivity, build an argument using evidence, not hypothetical futures involving your daughter.

No Im not. Its just an easy way for you to discredit me. A weak way at that. And well, should I use someone else's child then? Would that make it better?

You talk about evidence, about free samples being an urban myth for God's sakes....and wheres YOUR evidence? Talk to fucking cops. Do some research, instead of basing this all on your own experiences being a social drug user. Thats like me saying things about gun running as concrete FACT because of MY history.

Yeah, I've used before. I've never gone to jail for using, though, nor do I use anymore...But you're still a parent, aren't you? ;)

Touche. :p

I know you dont use anymore, but really, youre the exception to the rule. Youre a brilliant girl, with a good fucking head on your shoulders. Not everyone is like you, Athena, ok?

Free samples is a different matter. Did your brother get himself hooked, or did a free sample get him hooked? No one ever offered offered me free drugs unless I was already using them.

He didnt go shopping for coke one day, no. He got it offered to him in the bar he used to work at. And I know you wont believe me, because it seems AWFULLY convenient, but for the record, he got his first few hits free. I cant remember what he called them. Balls? Lol...something like that?

Who are you to dictate how a person can and can't fuck their life up?

Lol. Im not. Thats why I say let the users do what the fuck they will. But the dealers should go. WHo the fuck are THEY, to give someone the chance to do it?

If someone was suicidal, and begged for a knife, would you give them the knife, or get them help? If you gave them the knife, you'd be charged, Athena, as an accomplice. You'd go to jail. Thats what dealers are. Accomplices, enablers, and I dont understand how you could be making this argument right now.

A kid who has occasionally used is a LOT different than the kid in your example who dates a meth dealer and winds up addicted. I'd say that, in most cases, a scenario like that does reflect on parenting.

Christ, are we blaming the parents now for everything? Are you one of the people that would send a parent to jail for their kids' crimes? Lay off the parenting for God's sake. Kids make their OWN decisions. You preached accountability at one point, lady. Wheres that gone?

The U.S. has a higher usage rate than countries with softer drug policies, in some cases. Don't give me this "if it just saves one..." bullshit.

BULLSHIT!? Fucking CHRIST. The US also has a higher rate of violence, so do you think we should BAN guns?

If we put people in jail for selling guns, would it decrease deaths?

That's not how legislation works. If we institute drug laws in order to significantly lessen usage, but it doesn't, why do we have them?

So should we give up on murder laws then? I mean....we HAVE them because, in principle, its the RIGHT thing, and we fight it. It doesnt work, because law is just that, a law scribed on a piece of fucking paper thats enforced by assholes who dont get paid shit to work in a dangerous atmosphere. People will do what they do regardless. That wont change. So youre proposing we just abandon trying?

There should always be a logical, factual basis for our legislation.

There is, you just choose not to see it, because it doesnt agree with what you believe.

Things should not be outlawed SIMPLY because the moral majority doesn't like them, which is the only fucking reason you've given me, here.

Well now I gave you more.

Give me a good reason. You know, something more than your opinion.

Fuck you, sykopaf.


[QUOTE]Can you? Sure. You *can* go to jail for all sorts of silly things. But prosecutors rarely pursue jail time in minor cases of contributing. If some kid asks me to go into a store and get him a case of beer, I'll maybe get arrested and get the shit fined out of me, but it's unlikely I'll be jailed. If I give that same kid some MDMA tabs? I'm going to jail...Even though liquor is more dangerous.


So, we should just not worry about it then? Sweeeeet. :zzz:

[ZombieBabe]

They all are. And thank GOd, thats why there are prison sentences for habitual offenders. I agree. Think about it this way, Athena: Do you think that you could play RR everyday for, say, 10 years and not shoot yourself in the head at least once? Some people drive drunk EVERYDAY. If we don't get them off the streets, eventually they're going to kill someone - eventually they will shoot themselves in the head, so to speak. If there is no harsh punishment for this, then all of those DUI arrests per year are going to be letting people back out on the streets to do it again. "Oh, it's just a fine." they say, as they climb behind the wheel while heading home from the bar. "I don't care if I get stopped by the cops." And then he veers across the median and plows into a minivan full of kids on the way home from Disney.

Although, I think there should be harsher penalties for texting while driving too, but that's another debate for another time.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

I agree. Think about it this way, Athena: Do you think that you could play RR everyday for, say, 10 years and not shoot yourself in the head at least once? Some people drive drunk EVERYDAY. If we don't get them off the streets, eventually they're going to kill someone - eventually they will shoot themselves in the head, so to speak. If there is no harsh punishment for this, then all of those DUI arrests per year are going to be letting people back out on the streets to do it again. "Oh, it's just a fine." they say, as they climb behind the wheel while heading home from the bar. "I don't care if I get stopped by the cops." And then he veers across the median and plows into a minivan full of kids on the way home from Disney.

Although, I think there should be harsher penalties for texting while driving too, but that's another debate for another time.

I think in some states, youre not even allowed to use a cell phone while driving, unless you have a bluetooth or something.

And texting? I do it while Im driving, and yeah, it probably SHOULD be outlawed, lol.

[Athena]

http://www.alcoholalert.com/drunk-driving-statistics.html

The 16,885 fatalities in alcohol-related crashes during 2005 represent an average
of one alcohol-related fatality every 31 minutes.

Scroll down to the graph as well.

More than a BIT there, Athena. :D

Finally! More than a fucking opinion!

Now, according to your source, less than 1/4 of traffic fatalities are CAUSED by drunk drivers:

"Nationwide in 2005, alcohol was present in 24 percent of the drivers involved in fatal crashes (BAC .01-.07, 4 percent; BAC .08 or greater, 20 percent)."

According to the NHTSA, 2/3 of those deaths are the drunk drivers themselves.

I don't agree with legislation that is specifically designed to save people from themselves. Kind of contrary to freedom, you know?

Lofl. I dont know how to respond to that nonsense.

Doesn't surprise me. :D

Cell phones:
"In 1997, The New England Journal of Medicine reported that motorists who use cell phones are four times more likely to crash. In a three-year study of Oklahoma crash data, researchers linked cell phone use with a ninefold increase in fatalities." Source (http://www.webmd.com/news/20000224/cell-phone-use-while-driving-increases-crash-risk)

NINEFOLD increase in FATALITIES. Shall we throw those people in prison for repeated offenses? We don't...We don't even arrest them. We ticket them. Why the double standard? Not rhetorical, either. I want you to explain to me why it's okay to throw one set of people in jail for behavior that is proven to increase accident rates, but not this other set of people over here.

Really? People make THREATS all fucking day to people, and get arrested for shit resulting in no damage. We have Homeland Security arresting people to make sure there is no damage. We take preventative measures all day long to make sure there is no damage. This is no different. Draconian???

This paragraph displays a FUNDAMENTAL lack of understanding regarding the concept of intent, the focal point of our justice system. You understand the difference between murder and manslaughter, right? Besides the vast disparity in sentencing guidelines, it's the presence of intent. We've decided that intending to murder someone is far worse than causing a death out of neglegence. Likewise, a crime that results in no damage but does display intent is far worse than ones that don't.

Only thing is, youre logic is flawed. The percentage of alcohol related fatalities per state is very high.

The national average for fatalities caused by drunk drivers is 24%. Less than 1/4th. Is it a problem? Yes. A "very high" average? Well, that's debatable.

I would assume you'll counter it by saying thats only a percentage in the small percentage of driving fatalities period. The percentage isnt that small, and again---The 16,885 fatalities in alcohol-related crashes during 2005 represent an average
of one alcohol-related fatality every 31 minutes.

Did you know that the average sentence for vehicular manslaughter tends to range from 3-5 years? Source (http://www.msgc.state.mn.us/Data%20Reports/cvh2002.pdf) Instead of hanging people out to dry for things they haven't yet done and have no intention to do, why don't we significantly punish those who take lives? Isn't that the more reasonable endeavor?

Openly ignores the facts? Youre bringing up fucking CHRIS ROCK to me as a fucking SOURCE!

Um, no, I didn't. When I source things, it's an article and a link (you know, like the several in this post). The Chris Rock thing was an anecdotal illustration. There's a big difference.

ANd no, I dont care how looney MADD is. It has nothing to do with the conversation at hand, whether DUI offenses should come with prison sentences! Thats like someone debating civil liberties for someone, and another person bringing up what loons the ACLU have turned into. Dont talk to me about logic, when yours is so terribly flawed.

LMAO...MADD is directly involved with increased sentencing for DUIs. They lobby like crazy (no pun intended) with exaggerated facts. When an organisation is largely responsible for the very thing I'm disagreeing with, I'd say their condition matters. If the ACLU was directly involved with the civil liberties case, they'd be germane as well. The founder of MADD left the organisation because they became so out of control and neo-prohibitionist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving#Candy_Lightner.27s_d eparture) Those are the people pressuring our legislators. Their level of insanity matters.

ANd do you realize how many murder sentences from years ago are found out to be bullshit thanks to DNA evidence? So should we abolish the courts all together? The system sucks, its flawed as hell. Doesnt mean we abandon the laws in place, that serve purpose, even if the people involved in prosecuting, or whathaveyou, cannot.

Wow...Could you fly off the handle any farther? Exaggerating (especially to that extent) to make a point only further detracts from your credibility. I'm not proposing throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'm proposing that punishments fit the crime, NOT the *possible future crime*.

No Im not. Its just an easy way for you to discredit me. A weak way at that. And well, should I use someone else's child then? Would that make it better?

Facts work.

You talk about evidence, about free samples being an urban myth for God's sakes....and wheres YOUR evidence? Talk to fucking cops. Do some research, instead of basing this all on your own experiences being a social drug user. Thats like me saying things about gun running as concrete FACT because of MY history.

They don't keep statistics on everything, you know. That being said, you are far more qualified to comment on the nature of illicit gun sales than I am. Likewise, I'm more qualified to comment on the nature of drug deals. So, yeah, it IS like that, and that is reasonable. :p

I know you dont use anymore, but really, youre the exception to the rule. Youre a brilliant girl, with a good fucking head on your shoulders. Not everyone is like you, Athena, ok?

No, I'm not the exception. In 2001, over 50% of the 18-25 age group reported using drugs at least once. Source (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/) Is 55% of the population addicted to drugs? Nope. I'm not the exception.

He didnt go shopping for coke one day, no. He got it offered to him in the bar he used to work at. And I know you wont believe me, because it seems AWFULLY convenient, but for the record, he got his first few hits free. I cant remember what he called them. Balls? Lol...something like that?

I didn't say it never happened, I said "largely urban myth"...and I stand by that statement.

Lol. Im not. Thats why I say let the users do what the fuck they will. But the dealers should go. WHo the fuck are THEY, to give someone the chance to do it?

"An inner-city merchant with a product on demand." :p

If someone was suicidal, and begged for a knife, would you give them the knife, or get them help? If you gave them the knife, you'd be charged, Athena, as an accomplice. You'd go to jail. Thats what dealers are. Accomplices, enablers, and I dont understand how you could be making this argument right now.

That's a ridiculous analogy. Drug users can't be compared to suicidal people. The people buying drugs don't often INTEND to kill themselves. Besides, if I'm a store clerk, and someone obviously unstable comes in to purchase a knife...What the fuck do I care what they do with it? I certainly wouldn't be jailed as an accomplice...:rolleyes:

Christ, are we blaming the parents now for everything? Are you one of the people that would send a parent to jail for their kids' crimes? Lay off the parenting for God's sake. Kids make their OWN decisions. You preached accountability at one point, lady. Wheres that gone?

Um, legally and realistically, KIDS do not exhibit personal responsibility. That's why parents CAN be jailed or sued for their children's actions. Generally speaking, the rule is pretty simple: Bad parenting, bad kids. Good parenting, good kids. Are there exceptions? Always. But to deny that basic premise is silly.

"It has already been established that bad parenting statistically predicts children’s aggression and that bad parenting plays a central causal role in leading theories of antisocial behavior (Lahey, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2003; Thornberry, 1996)." Source (http://www.apa.org/journals/features/bul1314533.pdf)

BULLSHIT!? Fucking CHRIST. The US also has a higher rate of violence, so do you think we should BAN guns?

If we put people in jail for selling guns, would it decrease deaths?

Huh? I feel no need to debate unrelated hypotheticals.

So should we give up on murder laws then? I mean....we HAVE them because, in principle, its the RIGHT thing, and we fight it. It doesnt work, because law is just that, a law scribed on a piece of fucking paper thats enforced by assholes who dont get paid shit to work in a dangerous atmosphere. People will do what they do regardless. That wont change. So youre proposing we just abandon trying?

The purpose of murder laws is NOT to deter. We don't have those laws because "it's right, and we fight it"...We have them because murder is a fundamental deprivation of another person's rights. We have them because ACTUAL damage is committed purposefully. Apples and oranges again, darling.

The purpose of DUI and anti-drug legislation is prevention, so yeah...If it doesn't prevent, the laws seem kind of pointless to me, especially when they have negative effects in other areas (tax burden, prison populations, etc.).

There is, you just choose not to see it, because it doesnt agree with what you believe.

Um, no. You're the one who openly admits to ignoring fact. You're the one here that uses your "belief" as an argument. I don't choose not to see things. I look at the impact these laws have on the prison system and on the court system and I juxtapose that with the impact they have on the things they're trying to prevent, which is minimal. I take into consideration things like early release rates for violent offenders, tax payer burden and recidivism.

My argument is based on information gathered and my Libertarian philosophy, NOT "beliefs" and hypotheticals.

Well now I gave you more.

Thanks for that. I don't like not being able to take you seriously. ;)

Fuck you, sykopaf.


Sykopaf offered only slightly less evidence than you did. Pot, meet Kettle. :p

[Athena]

I agree. Think about it this way, Athena: Do you think that you could play RR everyday for, say, 10 years and not shoot yourself in the head at least once? Some people drive drunk EVERYDAY. If we don't get them off the streets, eventually they're going to kill someone - eventually they will shoot themselves in the head, so to speak.

ZB...I love ya, girly...But that's about as statistically unsound as is humanly possible. The numbers show this to be untrue. 80% of drivers admit to driving drunk; with roughly 160,000,000 drivers on the road, that's about 128,000,000 drivers that drive drunk on occasion every year...But only around 13,000 involved in fatal crashes?

No, drunk drivers will not necessarily eventually kill someone. It's not even likely.


If there is no harsh punishment for this, then all of those DUI arrests per year are going to be letting people back out on the streets to do it again. "Oh, it's just a fine." they say, as they climb behind the wheel while heading home from the bar. "I don't care if I get stopped by the cops." And then he veers across the median and plows into a minivan full of kids on the way home from Disney.

Drunk driving victims are more rare than MADD would have you believe. The numbers PROVE this. Don't buy into the hype.

We should be punishing the drivers that DO cause damage with prison time...and plenty of it. But to throw people in jail because they did something that might have conceivably been dangerous eventually??? Nope. Sorry. Not buying it.

For your argument to be successful, you would have to prove that jail time deters drunk driving more than license revocation and heafty fines. I haven't seen that to be the case.

Although, I think there should be harsher penalties for texting while driving too, but that's another debate for another time.

Harsher, like...Jail time?

I just feel like punishments should fit the crime. Imprisonment should be reserved for people who either cause damage or are intentionally trying to cause damage.

[ZombieBabe]

I just feel like punishments should fit the crime. Imprisonment should be reserved for people who either cause damage or are intentionally trying to cause damage.This is about as effective as cops that can't arrest a woman's stalker until he does something to harm her. I'm not besmirching your opinion - I just believe there should be a more pro-active approach.

I'm not going to argue all the other statistics and shit, because I'm at work and my brain is already fucking full. Would this day just END already, PLEASE?! It's going slow as shit. :mad:

[Athena]

This is about as effective as cops that can't arrest a woman's stalker until he does something to harm her. I'm not besmirching your opinion - I just believe there should be a more pro-active approach.

No, it's not. The man stalking the woman INTENDS to hurt her. A person who drives drunk does not INTEND to crash, nor do they usually. It's vastly different.

[swivel]

No, it's not. The man stalking the woman INTENDS to hurt her. A person who drives drunk does not INTEND to crash, nor do they usually. It's vastly different.

Intention isn't the only important factor. When you knowingly put others at some "risk", you are doing the same thing as another with "intent", which has been found equivalent over and over in our judicial system.

If you erect a swimming pool, and do not put a fence around it, you aren't INTENDING to drown the neighbor's kids, but the courts have found equivalence here. By understanding the risks, or not educating yourselves regarding them, you are doing the same harm to society as someone with INTENTION, and the courts will treat you thusly.

Same goes for drinking and driving. I do not think you have a leg to stand on here.

[Athena]

If you erect a swimming pool, and do not put a fence around it, you aren't INTENDING to drown the neighbor's kids, but the courts have found equivalence here. By understanding the risks, or not educating yourselves regarding them, you are doing the same harm to society as someone with INTENTION, and the courts will treat you thusly.


No, it's not "equivalent". Criminal negligence (what you described above) gets treated significantly different in court than, say, second-degree murder (had the drowning been committed with intent).

Sentencing guidelines differ vastly between murder and involuntary manslaughter, for example. An average sentence for involuntary manslaughter may be 2 years whereas for murder it is 16 or so. This is because, in crimes involving the death on an individual, intent is paramount.

The person in your example, in many jurisdictions, may likely get a suspended sentence. It's not uncommon for a case like that to result in a civil suit and no jail time at all. On page 12, there's a chart displaying sentencing for involuntary manslaughter. (http://www.ussc.gov/publicat/MANSLAUG.PDF) There are a couple that result in no jail time and the harshest sentence is 3 years. Now, compare that to average sentencing for murder (http://www.crimevictimsunited.org/measure11/murderguidelines.htm) at roughly 16 years.

This site shows sentencing guidelines (http://www.ussc.gov/1998guid/tabcon98.htm). Maximum sentencing is life for second-degree murder but drops all the way to 10 years for the next level, voluntary manslaughter. Intent is the only differentiating factor and it makes QUITE a difference.

I certainly do have a leg to stand on. Intent at this level is not the only factor, but it is the central factor.

Drunk driving fatalities are almost always considered to be vehicular homicide, which, in terms of sentencing, is nearly identical to involuntary manslaughter. Intoxication has been argued and established by precedent to be approaching intent, but average sentences show just how uncomfortable the courts are with that line of thinking. Intent is specific and in very few exceptions is it substituted by circumstance (felony murder being a more notable example).

All I am saying is that this same logic should apply universally within the justice system. DUI legislation that allows imprisonment for a crime that results in no damage is draconian. I've yet to hear any of you folks supporting this legislation arguing that it should be applied to cell phone users...

Anyone care to explain the double-standard, yet?


What about the sobriety checkpoints? Are you socialists on board with those, as well? I mean, all in the name of "the greater good" right? :p

Seriously, though...What you folks seem to fail to note is that this legislation has less to do with prevention than fundraising. The benefit of anti-DUI legislation leveled out after license revocation and fines were introduced, but the penalties keep getting stiffer. If it's about prevention, why do you think that is?

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

No, it's not. The man stalking the woman INTENDS to hurt her. A person who drives drunk does not INTEND to crash, nor do they usually. It's vastly different.

He or she knows the risk though. They get into the vehicle, knowing full well that their reaction times are poor, and that it could kill others. They might not be seeking to murder anyone, but the risk of killing them is there, and they kow full well, and do it anyway.


And you wrote:

No, drunk drivers will not necessarily eventually kill someone. It's not even likely.

Read the percentages of fatalities in road related deaths that are involving drunk drivers again. What the fuck are you talking about?

[Athena]

He or she knows the risk though. They get into the vehicle, knowing full well that their reaction times are poor, and that it could kill others. They might not be seeking to murder anyone, but the risk of killing them is there, and they kow full well, and do it anyway.

That's negligence, certainly...But not intent.


And you wrote:

No, drunk drivers will not necessarily eventually kill someone. It's not even likely.

Read the percentages of fatalities in road related deaths that are involving drunk drivers again. What the fuck are you talking about?

Millions of drivers drive drunk annually, but it only results in about 13,000 fatal accidents. Simple math shows that, no, it's not "likely" that even a frequently drunk driver will eventually kill someone. The percentage of fatalities caused by drunk drivers has nothing to do with the likelihood of a drunk driver killing someone. Surely, you understand this.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

Finally! More than a fucking opinion!

LMAO. Its an alternative to the bullshit you've been throwing out though, doesn't it?


I don't agree with legislation that is specifically designed to save people from themselves. Kind of contrary to freedom, you know?

No. Because every time they play with other people's lives, theyre risking not only the freedom of complete strangers, but also their lives.

Doesn't surprise me. :D

I gotta be honest...the middle school logic DOES surprise the hell outta me.


NINEFOLD increase in FATALITIES. Shall we throw those people in prison for repeated offenses? We don't...We don't even arrest them. We ticket them. Why the double standard? Not rhetorical, either. I want you to explain to me why it's okay to throw one set of people in jail for behavior that is proven to increase accident rates, but not this other set of people over here.

Its a solid point, but using a cell phone is different than being completely inebriated and driving a moving weapon. Youre using these statistics to prove what, exactly? Youre trying to muddy the waters, and it would be admirable, if it werent so silly. Laws could be passed to outlaw cell phone use, and if they do that, fine. But having a conversation with someone, but having your senses intact is different than getting into a vehicle when you cant add or subtract.

Again. You bringing up cell phones has NOTHING to do with drunk driving. Its a tactic, to try to take away from the problem thats being discussed.


This paragraph displays a FUNDAMENTAL lack of understanding regarding the concept of intent, the focal point of our justice system. You understand the difference between murder and manslaughter, right? Besides the vast disparity in sentencing guidelines, it's the presence of intent. We've decided that intending to murder someone is far worse than causing a death out of neglegence. Likewise, a crime that results in no damage but does display intent is far worse than ones that don't.

Its FAR worse because INTENTION!!!???? :lol: :lol: :lol:

The result is the same, in the end, right? In the end, there is a death. Im not saying its wrong to get drunk. Im saying, getting drunk and barely being able to walk, and getting into a vehicle that acts as a weapon and driving it out in public is a crime, thank God, and should be a crime, and none of this nonesense that youre throwing out, thankfully will EVER change it. This may be one of the silliest debates Ive EVER partaken in.

The national average for fatalities caused by drunk drivers is 24%. Less than 1/4th. Is it a problem? Yes. A "very high" average? Well, that's debatable.

Un. Fucking. Believable. Thats all I can say to that. You'd have been better off not writing that shit. :(

Did you know that the average sentence for vehicular manslaughter tends to range from 3-5 years? Source (http://www.msgc.state.mn.us/Data%20Reports/cvh2002.pdf) Instead of hanging people out to dry for things they haven't yet done and have no intention to do, why don't we significantly punish those who take lives? Isn't that the more reasonable endeavor?

FOr the most part, it IS that way, Athena. Ive seen men and women walk after MULTIPLE DUIs. Its the same as a child molestor walking free after touching a kid, but not much more. And then when more happens, were left wondering why we didnt punish him earlier. When a family is slaughtered by a drunk driver, and you can find a rap sheet an inch thick consisting of DUIs, questions rightfully ensue. BUt youre proposing that no matter how many times you offend, a slap on the wrist is all thats needed.

As for Chris Rock, fine. Then dont ever bring up what a comedian says again in a debate to further your point, please. :D :D

LMAO...MADD is directly involved with increased sentencing for DUIs. They lobby like crazy (no pun intended) with exaggerated facts. When an organisation is largely responsible for the very thing I'm disagreeing with, I'd say their condition matters. If the ACLU was directly involved with the civil liberties case, they'd be germane as well. The founder of MADD left the organisation because they became so out of control and neo-prohibitionist. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mothers_Against_Drunk_Driving#Candy_Lightner.27s_d eparture) Those are the people pressuring our legislators. Their level of insanity matters.

No. Because in the end, its about risk. Drunk Drivers are putting lives at risk, whether you want to agree with that or not, its fact. MADD has nothing to do with that. You may not agree with their methods, or even how they operate, but then again, you dont agree that drunk driving should be a crime.


Wow...Could you fly off the handle any farther?

Eh? :confused: Did I fly off the handle???

Exaggerating (especially to that extent) to make a point only further detracts from your credibility.

Further detracts? Did I LOSE credibility? I thought YOU were the one that said drunk driving wasnt russian roulette. I thought YOU were the one that threw out the 24% statistic, and said its debatable that it isnt high.

MY CREDIBILITY? :confused: I think it's fine.

I'm not proposing throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'm proposing that punishments fit the crime, NOT the *possible future crime*.

It already does. People convicted of DUI dont go away for life. When the risk, is exactly that. Risking others' lives.

Facts work.

Take that advice then.

They don't keep statistics on everything, you know. That being said, you are far more qualified to comment on the nature of illicit gun sales than I am. Likewise, I'm more qualified to comment on the nature of drug deals. So, yeah, it IS like that, and that is reasonable. :p

More qualified to offer an opinion, even an educated one, only you're wrong.

"'I liked being the rich kid in that area and having my own high-status life,' " Garrett was quoted as saying. "'I could go anywhere in the 'hood. They all knew who I was. I enjoyed it. I liked being a drug dealer. . . . These kids were scared of me,' " O'Neill quoted Garrett as saying. "'I was even selling to their parents . . . . I turned everyone on to Oxycontin.'"

Source- http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm (I dont know how to make source the link. :D I barely know how to USE a computer!)


No, I'm not the exception. In 2001, over 50% of the 18-25 age group reported using drugs at least once. Source (http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/publications/factsht/druguse/) Is 55% of the population addicted to drugs? Nope. I'm not the exception.

Woah! You didnt understand AT ALL my point! ANd what a bold generalization, but why should that surprise me here? Thats a stat entailing kids who used it AT LEAST ONCE. ANd again...Im talking about hard drugs here, not pot and such. But nice try. :rolleyes:

I didn't say it never happened, I said "largely urban myth"...and I stand by that statement.

Ugh.

"An inner-city merchant with a product on demand." :p

Funny shit? :(

That's a ridiculous analogy. Drug users can't be compared to suicidal people.

Absolutely they can.

The people buying drugs don't often INTEND to kill themselves. Besides, if I'm a store clerk, and someone obviously unstable comes in to purchase a knife...What the fuck do I care what they do with it? I certainly wouldn't be jailed as an accomplice...:rolleyes:


Then go back and READ what I said again, instead of changing the fucking analogy to make you a STORE CLERK, lofl!!! I SAID if you knowingly gave someone who wanted to kill themselves a knife, you WOULD be an accomplice, which you would. I never made you a goddamn clerk, lol!:eek:

Um, legally and realistically, KIDS do not exhibit personal responsibility. That's why parents CAN be jailed or sued for their children's actions. Generally speaking, the rule is pretty simple: Bad parenting, bad kids. Good parenting, good kids. Are there exceptions? Always. But to deny that basic premise is silly.

No one denied the basic premise, but even the good kids fuck up, make mistakes, rebel, go through their crazy phases, and have to learn their lessons on their own.

"It has already been established that bad parenting statistically predicts children’s aggression and that bad parenting plays a central causal role in leading theories of antisocial behavior (Lahey, Moffitt, & Caspi, 2003; Thornberry, 1996)." Source (http://www.apa.org/journals/features/bul1314533.pdf)

I wont disagree with that. But what does this have to do with drunk driving again? Or drug dealers? You said earlier because I had a child, I couldnt be objective. Youre wrong. And its a fantastically stupid thing to say.


The purpose of murder laws is NOT to deter.

What?

We don't have those laws because "it's right, and we fight it"...We have them because murder is a fundamental deprivation of another person's rights.

LOFL....deprivint them of their rights? Er....wow...You get the understatement of the century award. But yeah, laws are largely based on morals.

We have them because ACTUAL damage is committed purposefully. Apples and oranges again, darling.

So are you opposed to arresting someone for planning to murder? Conspiracy to commit murder? (Hey...you shush;) )....assault with intent to kill? Its apples and oranges, sure, but both are fruits. ;) :D

The purpose of DUI and anti-drug legislation is prevention, so yeah...If it doesn't prevent, the laws seem kind of pointless to me, especially when they have negative effects in other areas (tax burden, prison populations, etc.).

WAit---we dont have murder laws to DETER, but our DUI laws ARE to deter??? Theyre BOTH there to deter. The laws exist because murder --well -- deprives people of their rights -- :D -- and DUI is risking --the people's, well, rights! :o Thats why theyre both crimes! One carries a larger sentence than the other. For good reason.

Um, no. You're the one who openly admits to ignoring fact.

You keep saying this. Eh?

You're the one here that uses your "belief" as an argument.

Oh fuck off with that shit! :p Its hogwash, and you know it. This is not belief....ITS BASED ON FACT, and its IN PLACE as a law...it is YOUR belief, based on nothing, that it shouldnt be a crime punished by lock up. You provide facts that cell phone usage kills more, that the law in place doesnt lessen the deaths, but other than that....the chance is still there, its "debatably high", but you want to continue to parade around as if youre the only one providing shit. In the end, its silly rhetoric.

I don't choose not to see things. I look at the impact these laws have on the prison system and on the court system and I juxtapose that with the impact they have on the things they're trying to prevent, which is minimal. I take into consideration things like early release rates for violent offenders, tax payer burden and recidivism.

Its flawed. Revisions may be needed. Doesnt mean we should eliminate the thought, or the law.

My argument is based on information gathered and my Libertarian philosophy, NOT "beliefs" and hypotheticals.

Try to look at it as it is then, not as a fucking liberterian, for God's sake. Geeezus. And hypotheticals? For Christs sake.

The law exists because of hypotheticals. Its speculative, that driving could lead to killing someone.

Thanks for that. I don't like not being able to take you seriously. ;)

You can cut out your fucking condescention anytime. Im getting fucking sick of it.



Sykopaf offered only slightly less evidence than you did. Pot, meet Kettle. :p

No no, here, let me help you understand this....YOURE the fucking pot, or kettle. Youre using HIS line, and you didnt like it one bit when he leveed that shit on you.

Is it CLEAR now?

[Athena]

Its a solid point, but using a cell phone is different than being completely inebriated and driving a moving weapon. Youre using these statistics to prove what, exactly? Youre trying to muddy the waters, and it would be admirable, if it werent so silly. Laws could be passed to outlaw cell phone use, and if they do that, fine. But having a conversation with someone, but having your senses intact is different than getting into a vehicle when you cant add or subtract.

Again. You bringing up cell phones has NOTHING to do with drunk driving. Its a tactic, to try to take away from the problem thats being discussed.

It's to illustrate inconsistancy in application of law. Action 1 and Action 2 are equally dangerous. Action 1 is punishable by jail time, but Action 2 is a mere ticket. How does that make sense?

Then you state that they are different. The link I posted that cited the New England Joural of Medicine stated that their study in '97 found cell phone use to be as dangerous as drunk driving. You tell me, how are they different? Because you commonly do one and not the other?

The result is the same, in the end, right? In the end, there is a death.

You know sentencing guidelines. You know the difference between murder sentences and involuntary manslaughter sentences. You KNOW that they are not viewed to be the same in the eyes of the law, simply because the result was the same.


BUt youre proposing that no matter how many times you offend, a slap on the wrist is all thats needed.

I'll go back to cell phones - equally dangerous as drunk driving. A person has been ticketed 8 times for it and gets pulled over again...they get another ticket. Why? Because they haven't caused any damage. Fines are used to discourage dangerous behavior.

As for Chris Rock, fine. Then dont ever bring up what a comedian says again in a debate to further your point, please. :D :D

Telling me what to do won't be successful just because you add a "please" at the end. Valient effort, though.



...but then again, you dont agree that drunk driving should be a crime.

Is it too much to ask for you to PAY ATTENTION? I just don't want it clogging up our jails and prisons when fines and revocation of licenses is an effective alternative.


Further detracts? Did I LOSE credibility? I thought YOU were the one that said drunk driving wasnt russian roulette. I thought YOU were the one that threw out the 24% statistic, and said its debatable that it isnt high.

You're right. It's hard to LOSE credibility when you don't start out with much.

Again - Odds of Russian Roulette: 1/6
Odds of causing a fatal crash while driving drunk: MUCH worse.

Comparing the risk of Russian Roulette with the risk of killing someone while driving drunk is intellectually dishonest. It's like comparing winning the lottery to winning something underneath a Coke cap.



More qualified to offer an opinion, even an educated one, only you're wrong.

"'I liked being the rich kid in that area and having my own high-status life,' " Garrett was quoted as saying. "'I could go anywhere in the 'hood. They all knew who I was. I enjoyed it. I liked being a drug dealer. . . . These kids were scared of me,' " O'Neill quoted Garrett as saying. "'I was even selling to their parents . . . . I turned everyone on to Oxycontin.'"

Source- http://www.profootballtalk.com/rumormill.htm (I dont know how to make source the link. :D I barely know how to USE a computer!)

Um, that didn't disprove my assertion. It proves a kid SOLD drugs.

Then go back and READ what I said again, instead of changing the fucking analogy to make you a STORE CLERK, lofl!!! I SAID if you knowingly gave someone who wanted to kill themselves a knife, you WOULD be an accomplice, which you would. I never made you a goddamn clerk, lol!:eek:

That's because your initial analogy was wrong. A drug dealer sells drugs to people who intend to get high. Not even in bizarro world does that equate to handing a knife to someone so they can kill themselves. You're right...You really are awful with analogies. ;)

You said earlier because I had a child, I couldnt be objective.

Oh, did I?

Actually, what I said was, you weren't being objective...Not that you were incapable. Keep up, please.

But yeah, laws are largely based on morals.

And I have a problem with that. Morals are relative. Laws should be based on more tangible information, not someone's personal values. Most people find cheating reprehensible...And it used to be illegal. Should it still be just because people think it's wrong?

So are you opposed to arresting someone for planning to murder? Conspiracy to commit murder? (Hey...you shush;) )....assault with intent to kill? Its apples and oranges, sure, but both are fruits. ;) :D

I already explained intent. I don't want to do it again.

WAit---we dont have murder laws to DETER, but our DUI laws ARE to deter??? Theyre BOTH there to deter.

*Sigh*...No, they're not. Murder sentencing is to punish someone who has hurt someone. DUI sentencing is to punish someone in hope of preventing them from hurting someone. See the difference? One punishes for tangible damage; the other punishes when there is no damage.

The laws exist because murder --well -- deprives people of their rights -- :D -- and DUI is risking --the people's, well, rights! :o Thats why theyre both crimes! One carries a larger sentence than the other. For good reason.

Jail sentences for a crime that results in no damage and is not motivated by intent is counter productive.

Why jail someone if jailing them fails to do anything but overpopulate jails?

[swivel]

Goddamn. This thread is fucking destroyed now. I've tried a dozen times to get through the last two posts.

*sigh*

[Athena]

Goddamn. This thread is fucking destroyed now. I've tried a dozen times to get through the last two posts.

*sigh*

Do I vaguely recall you mentioning that you don't care for that style of post? If that's what you mean, sorry about that. It's lazy and nitpicky, certainly. It's a habit I've been trying to break. :o

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

It's to illustrate inconsistancy in application of law. Action 1 and Action 2 are equally dangerous. Action 1 is punishable by jail time, but Action 2 is a mere ticket. How does that make sense?

Wow, youre thick. ;) I explained it. Go read it again. I shouldnt have to explain something like that twice.

Then you state that they are different. The link I posted that cited the New England Joural of Medicine stated that their study in '97 found cell phone use to be as dangerous as drunk driving. You tell me, how are they different? Because you commonly do one and not the other?

The dangers might be equal, but again. Read above, the difference of the two. Its obvious, but if you really have no idea, do some research on how drinking affects the body different than talking does. :D

I understand your point, but all you're doing is looking at it in black and white, and it doesn't work that way. Im not defending cell phone usage while driving. I'm talking about whether drunk driving should be punishable by law.


I'll go back to cell phones - equally dangerous as drunk driving. A person has been ticketed 8 times for it and gets pulled over again...they get another ticket. Why? Because they haven't caused any damage. Fines are used to discourage dangerous behavior.

Because, Athena, if theyre asked to walk in a straight fucking line, they can. Stop acting like you dont understand the difference.

Telling me what to do won't be successful just because you add a "please" at the end. Valient effort, though.

:D I tried.

Is it too much to ask for you to PAY ATTENTION? I just don't want it clogging up our jails and prisons when fines and revocation of licenses is an effective alternative.

Understood. But thats why I agreed with the original point, that more prisons should be built. Way more. And bigger. No one likes to live near a prison. THeyre as ugly as landfills, and hurt property almost as much. But we need many more. Its a better alternative than adjusting laws for drunk drivers.

You're right. It's hard to LOSE credibility when you don't start out with much.

It also hurts credibility when you resort to childish insults. And thats what youre doing here, because you'd be hard pressed to find anyone who says Im not credible. Before this argument, you would've been one of the ones who vouched for me, but right now, youre simply pissed off, and saying stupid things like this, that actually have a negative effect on YOURS. So stop it. And I wont say please this time.

Again - Odds of Russian Roulette: 1/6
Odds of causing a fatal crash while driving drunk: MUCH worse.

Im not comparing ODDS. YOURE comparing ODDS. I said it WAS russian roulette, you said it wasnt. Youre flat out fucking wrong, so now you twist this into an odds debate.

Comparing the risk of Russian Roulette with the risk of killing someone while driving drunk is intellectually dishonest. It's like comparing winning the lottery to winning something underneath a Coke cap.

Horrible. :surprised:



Um, that didn't disprove my assertion. It proves a kid SOLD drugs.

ANd turned people onto stiffer ones. Like you said no one does, because they only sell what people come for. But Ill admit, it was pretty weak. Truth is, I had a part two to that, an article about how drug dealers get people hooked by offering samples and such, but I couldnt find it, and I was too lazy to look, so Ill concede on that one. Since I havent posted it, I wont argue it. Fair enough.

That's because your initial analogy was wrong. A drug dealer sells drugs to people who intend to get high. Not even in bizarro world does that equate to handing a knife to someone so they can kill themselves. You're right...You really are awful with analogies. ;)

LOL! Shaddap. :)

But yes it does. Just because you dont see someone who is hooked on crack as living on the edge, and being virtually suicidal doesnt make it not true, see. A few days ago, I had a conversation with someone who talked about losing a decent amount of friends to drugs. So yes, its perfectly valid, you just say it isnt, merely because it doesnt support your claims. Its that simple, really.

Actually, what I said was, you weren't being objective...Not that you were incapable. Keep up, please.

Ill try to keep up. :o

And I have a problem with that. Morals are relative. Laws should be based on more tangible information, not someone's personal values. Most people find cheating reprehensible...And it used to be illegal. Should it still be just because people think it's wrong?

When its CLEARLY wrong, yes.

I already explained intent. I don't want to do it again.

Lofl.

*Sigh*...No, they're not. Murder sentencing is to punish someone who has hurt someone. DUI sentencing is to punish someone in hope of preventing them from hurting someone. See the difference? One punishes for tangible damage; the other punishes when there is no damage.

Lol, thats just not true though. DUI is a punishment because its AGAINST THE LAW. Its against the law because youre performing an action in public that puts lives at risk. Its clearly wrong. Clearly.

Jail sentences for a crime that results in no damage and is not motivated by intent is counter productive.

In your opinion, so in the end, thats all this boils down to. Sykopaf was right. In the end, you have nothing better to offer. ;)

Why jail someone if jailing them fails to do anything but overpopulate jails?

Grumble....I agree with that. But in the case of drunk driving, it goes beyond that. Theyre intentionally putting lives at risk. Its INTENT. They know its a risk, yet they get in the car ANYWAY. So thats the reason we're jailing them. To hopefully teach them a lesson. DUI isnt a life sentence you know.

Thats why we need change to the judicial system. From the top on down to the bottom. We also need more jails, more prisons. THats what this all stemmed from, and it comes full circle.

[Athena]

I'm getting nowhere. I don't know if it's because you're biased or because you're simply misunderstanding, but enough of your responses either failed to address my points entirely or misconstrued them to a gross degree...

We'll have to agree to disagree, here.

[alizardsbet]

poor athena. i get her logic... and wasnt there an earlier debate about this somewhere... maybe we should take it back there. emotions are running high. woa. is it that serious?

look athena makes a good point about laws not making a dent on the habitual driving. so i agree with her, that maybe we should stop trying something that doesnt work and find an alternative source, instead of foolishly hoping it will sink in. proper science teaches that you dont continue to preform the same experiment hoping for a different result (and yes i am quoting the disney channel). examples could be: harder driving tests. morally prudent tests that determine the sense a person makes about rationalizing whether its ok to drink and drive... which i think athena and a butt load of other people would fail. make people who are habitual offenders have to retake those damn tests. place restrictions on their insurance companies that prevent them from getting insurance... so while they might be able to to have a license and proper gov't identification they arent allowed to operate their car as they dont have insurance on their car and that is illegal driving whether you are sober or not for the simple reason you "could" get in an accident. set curfews for them. treat them like the fucking selfish children they are being by taking risks without proper respect for other human life as well as the poor dog that might be wandering the streets at two in the morning. prevent them from driving without someone supervising them in their car if they need to drive somewhere. i am sorry but driving is a privilege.

i am sorry but i will even go as far as to include people who are reckless in their car in general be penalized... if they arent paying attention or are frequently speed demons and dont learn their lessons. raises a hand. i am that speed demon... so you cant call me bias. i also think rewarding the good citizens with privileges and get out of jail free cards for every year they dont screw up.

heavy fines. fines on people who were out with the person "contributing" to their drinking (even if they are legal) and not taking action to care for the person (and possible repercussions that reflect badly on everyone!) to make sure they dont drive, as they were a party to the crime that "might" take place, so it becomes a community responsibility to take care of each other... instead of letting the innocent bystanders get away with murder.... example: i went to a party this halloween and i was drinking, there was a lot going around at the house... but when all was said and done, a person whos name i dont even remember asked me if i was ok to drive... as i hadnt had another drink for about an hour and half i was pretty sure i was ok, but was deeply flattered that an almost perfect stranger would care enough to ask... when it was very apparent that he himself was nice and toasted at the moment. matter of fact that was the first time anyone has asked me, and frankly i still believe it should be sole responsibility to make that determination, but as you are in another state of mind i can see where it should be a group effort. the fines on people around other people drinking would strengthen the resolve to prevent harm.

i think bars should also share some of that responsibility if they are passing out the alcohol... i mean companies that are slack about interaction policies among their coworkers are held accountable for any misconduct that happens on their turf... so why shouldnt bars...?

you want draconic laws... i am all for killing people who do that. (please refer to that last thread) so i am trying to be reasonable and offer alternatives than taking the easiest route of prevention. im sorry but monies that go into caging these animals should be put toward preventive actions not the consequences of actions...becuz then it just becomes more fun, more taboo to try your luck... as the odds are in an individuals favor that more than likely nothing will happen. so its a little danger in an otherwise humdrum existence... instead why not start raising a society who finds in abominable to do such an act... like throwing a jew down the well... or fucking a four year old.... or assassinating bush? instead of wasting our time on telling me there should be consequences show me... that driving drunk with the potential to kill someone is morally wrong... you cant do that right now... and i wonder why...

i mean hell give them every opportunity to prevent an action. be able to call a cop to get a ride if you need be. discounts on public fair if youve drinking. tax breaks on taxis that give a lift to a sloshed individual. anything... that rewards good samaritan work.

as for the drugs... well. i am sorry but even as a parent you dont have a right to prevent your child from making her choices when she comes to age... but you do have the right i think to beat the living day lights out of someone who is a bad influence on your little girl... which i think in a couple years she is going to set your teeth on edge. i dont have a problem with people using... and i was offered drugs free of charge but i agree with athena again... people who are habitual users seek the dealers out and it isnt offered them... its more the individuals that use that give you a taste... but then there is already that choice in your heart that you were open to it. you arent talking about how much you hate a teacher and then it gets brought up suddenly that "hey man... you wanna try some wacky tobacky?" no... generally you are inquiring first. the curiosity is there already. and that there... is something that is instilled in the child by the parent.

parents have to walk a knifes edge... as too much parenting can have the kid throwing everything they are taught out the window... and too little can have them not learning anything to begin with. i dont envy you your job, but we as a society are not going to make your job any easier by taking away all the temptations that go along with a society. that isnt our responsibility... and besides taking away those obstacles that we all must face prevent character of an individual from developing and then we are all happy little androids... and i am sorry i'd rather risk the death of a few idiots than be bored to tears in a dull sterile world.

[Richard Langston]

Athena's arguments in this thread have been so bad, I just had to register and respond.

PURE BULLSHIT



Drunk drivers will not necessarily eventually kill someone. It's not even likely.

And, no, it's not playing "Russian roulette" with other lives.

The crack dealer who gives it out for free the first time to get people hooked is LARGELY urban myth.

When a person sells alcohol it to a minor, they aren't locked up, they're fined.

As is painfully apparent, our current drug laws AREN'T SAVING ANYONE.

My point on DUI legislation is that, at a certain point, it FAILS to PREVENT ANYTHING.

PIG HEADED



You will never convince me that someone should spend time in prison because, theoretically, they *could* have caused damage. Prison is for people who DO cause damage.

But to throw people in jail because they did something that might have conceivably been dangerous eventually??? Nope. Sorry. Not buying it.

PERSONAL AND CONDESCENDING



You're letting emotions dictate your argument. I appreciate your perspective; it must be hard having a kid to think about in these terms, but really...

Jesus...You're being thick.

You obviously fail to recognise logic, here.

And you DARE lecture ME about logic? That's offensive coming from someone who openly and intentionally ignores the facts.

I wasn't being condescending. I've just heard many a parent claim that having a child is license to have no factual basis for an argument. That happens to be what you're doing here. If you want me to assume objectivity, build an argument using evidence, not hypothetical futures involving your daughter.

Who are you to dictate how a person can and can't fuck their life up?

Wow...Could you fly off the handle any farther? Exaggerating (especially to that extent) to make a point only further detracts from your credibility.

What I said was, you weren't being objective...Not that you were incapable. Keep up, please.

It's hard to LOSE credibility when you don't start out with much.

UNDERSTATEMENTS AND EXAGGERATIONS



Does drunk driving increase the odds? A bit...

"Chances are small" and "chances are amazingly minute" are vastly different degrees.

The national average for fatalities caused by drunk drivers is 24%. Less than 1/4th. Is it a problem? Yes. A "very high" average? Well, that's debatable.

Murder is a fundamental deprivation of another person's rights.

STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS



Driving PERIOD kills people.

Of course, fucking with the radio, talking on a cell phone or talking to passengers increases those risks as well.

MADD, which was once a respectable organisation, has turned into a raving, neo-prohibition organisation that purposely distorts numbers to paint drunk driving to be a much bigger problem than it really is.

If I'm a store clerk, and someone obviously unstable comes in to purchase a knife...

It's like comparing winning the lottery to winning something underneath a Coke cap.

I'll go back to cell phones - equally dangerous as drunk driving.

WHAT THE FUCK?



Chris Rock once said in one of his stand ups something along the lines of…

When I source things, it's an article and a link (you know, like the several in this post). The Chris Rock thing was an anecdotal illustration. There's a big difference.

Jail sentences have not reduced drunk driving rates. Those rate dropped when we began fining and revoking licenses.

The purpose of murder laws is NOT to deter.

I didn't say it never happened, I said "largely urban myth"...and I stand by that statement.

FUNNIEST LINE



I feel no need to debate unrelated hypotheticals.

Athena, your debating skills are pathetic.

[Killroy]

Athena's arguments in this thread have been so bad, I just had to register and respond.

PURE BULLSHIT



PIG HEADED



PERSONAL AND CONDESCENDING



UNDERSTATEMENTS AND EXAGGERATIONS



STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS



WHAT THE FUCK?



FUNNIEST LINE



Athena, your debating skills are pathetic.

I have just quoted your responses to Athena's "pathetic" debating skills. Are you sure you should be commenting at all?

[Richard Langston]

Nothing Athena wrote in three pages of debate was worth more response than that.

[ZombieBabe]

Nothing Athena wrote in three pages of debate was worth more response than that.I think what Morbid is trying to say is that if you don't agree with her stance on the subject, that's fine, but how about posing some valid arguments? Calling someone a stupid poopyhead isn't exactly a compelling argument... :rolleyes:

I do have to ask, Athena. What is your take on smoking in public/restaurants? I presume you're a non-smoker, so you have to have some sort of opinion on the subject. This has some bearing on the current debate, which is why I ask.

[Killroy]

Nothing Athena wrote in three pages of debate was worth more response than that.

If they were worth you registering just to type 8 Cap Locked sentences, then I think they are worth friggin' countering. If you are not able to construct a rebuttal to anything she said aside from sticking your proverbial tongue out at her, then I would ask you refrain from even attempting to respond back to anything she has typed, as you are clearly demonstrating you do not possess the intellect.

I would love for you to prove me wrong by typing out something to back up your PIG HEADED and UNDERSTATEMENTS, but I am not holding my breath. Your last comment was a cop out, and was expected.

[swivel]

If they were worth you registering just to type 8 Cap Locked sentences, then I think they are worth friggin' countering. If you are not able to construct a rebuttal to anything she said aside from sticking your proverbial tongue out at her, then I would ask you refrain from even attempting to respond back to anything she has typed, as you are clearly demonstrating you do not possess the intellect.

I would love for you to prove me wrong by typing out something to back up your PIG HEADED and UNDERSTATEMENTS, but I am not holding my breath. Your last comment was a cop out, and was expected.

ASSHOLE

[Athena]

First off, LMAO @ Mr. Langston.

Okay...had to get that out. *Ahem* Moving along...



I do have to ask, Athena. What is your take on smoking in public/restaurants? I presume you're a non-smoker, so you have to have some sort of opinion on the subject. This has some bearing on the current debate, which is why I ask.

Actually, I'm a smoker...Who doesn't smoke in my own house.

I STRONGLY disagree with the classification of private establishments as "public". They are not public; they are not taxpayer-funded and they legally reserve the right to refuse service. Yeah...not public.

I believe that, when I own a building, I decide what, within legal bounds, happens on that property. When you choose to patronise an establishment, you are willingly subjecting yourself to the conditions there. If you don't want to see scantily-clad women, don't go to Hooter's. If you don't like loud music, don't go to a restaurant advertising a live band. Likewise, if you don't like smoke, frequent non-smoking establishments. The public should not be able to force Hooter's to clothe their waitresses or disallow live bands from playing simply for convenience sake.

In short, the market should be allowed to decide. In Seattle, prior to the draconian smoking ban being instituted, many restaurants had made and were making the VOLUNTARY switch to non-smoking. Why? Because not everyone smokes and some people prefer a smoke-free environment. When these conditions exist, you will see the market adjust to the will of the people. This is how it's supposed to work.

Frankly, I don't give two shits about the non-smoker whose favorite restaurant allows smoking. Your convenience is not worth the rights of private business owners.

Now, the ONLY leg these smoking bans have to stand on is the effects of the smoking on employees. However, choosing to work somewhere is not unlike choosing to eat or drink somewhere. Ultimately, it's still your choice. Lots of employees enter fields that involve inherent danger. They can't all adjust the standards of those industries in the name of safety. Sure, some things can be done to mitigate the danger; many of the smoking establishments I used to go to had smoke filters that would suck the smoke out of the air.

The fact is, some business took hits due to this legislation. Some businesses were forced to close. Casinos benefited, though. :p

You ask me, and I'm likely to side against a lot of government regulation in business. In most cases, they are things that will be corrected by the market. The government should only get involved when it is absolutely necessary, and it was simply not necessary, in this case.

[ZombieBabe]

Actually, I'm a smoker...Who doesn't smoke in my own house. Right on. We don't smoke in my house either. I hated my parents for smoking around me when I was a kid. Why should I foist my nasty habit on my kids? I can take my happy ass outside.

Errrr. I was hammered last night when I posted that, and now I can't remember where I was going with that, soooo nevermind. :oops:

[swivel]

Right on. We don't smoke in my house either. I hated my parents for smoking around me when I was a kid. Why should I foist my nasty habit on my kids? I can take my happy ass outside.

Errrr. I was hammered last night when I posted that, and now I can't remember where I was going with that, soooo nevermind. :oops:

Don't drink and post, please.

A PUI for you!


Edit: That's pronounced "POOIE", like spitting, which is all alcohol is good for.

[ZombieBabe]

Don't drink and post, please.

A PUI for you!You do realize that probably at least half of my posts are when I'm hammered? Here's a good rule of thumb: if the post is made before, say 7pm EST, then I was likely sober. I cannot physically bring myself to drink before 7pm. Anything after that is iffy.

I have, however, posted really early in the morning when I was still drunk from the night before. :D

[Athena]

I totally came back Friday night with the intention of performing a little drunk posting...But, alas, no one was here. :(

I went to MySpace instead. Nothing like a little hyper-political posting...While intoxicated. :p

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

To hand around here, Mr. Langston, you gotta back up your beef. I appreciate your side of things, but people seem to be pretty tight here, and with reasons behind their stances. It'd be good if you can do the same. If you dont agree with her, great. But to say her debate skills suck, is well, silly, because I think the woman took an absurd line of thinking and fought like a fucking lion with it. :D I'd say thats a sign of sharp skills, my friend.

[Athena]

...because I think the woman took an absurd line of thinking and fought like a fucking lion with it. :D I'd say thats a sign of sharp skills, my friend.

Grrrrr.....:mad:

But, uh...Thanks. :p

[Richard Langston]

What more is there to say about a person who keeps bringing up one straw man argument after another in a debate about issues? Straw man arguments are designed to confuse issues. They're designed to set the other person up for a fall. They're distractions, and they're the sign of someone who is losing a debate.

Each of the following statements is a straw man argument.



Driving PERIOD kills people.

Of course, fucking with the radio, talking on a cell phone or talking to passengers increases those risks as well.

MADD, which was once a respectable organisation, has turned into a raving, neo-prohibition organisation that purposely distorts numbers to paint drunk driving to be a much bigger problem than it really is.

If I'm a store clerk, and someone obviously unstable comes in to purchase a knife...

It's like comparing winning the lottery to winning something underneath a Coke cap.

I'll go back to cell phones - equally dangerous as drunk driving.


What more is there to say about a person who keeps making things personal in a debate about issues? Making personal digs, insulting childish comments, or showing utter contempt for the other side of a debate is the sign of someone who is losing a debate.

The following statements are personal and condescending.



You're letting emotions dictate your argument. I appreciate your perspective; it must be hard having a kid to think about in these terms, but really...

Jesus...You're being thick.

You obviously fail to recognise logic, here.

And you DARE lecture ME about logic? That's offensive coming from someone who openly and intentionally ignores the facts.

I wasn't being condescending. I've just heard many a parent claim that having a child is license to have no factual basis for an argument. That happens to be what you're doing here. If you want me to assume objectivity, build an argument using evidence, not hypothetical futures involving your daughter.

Who are you to dictate how a person can and can't fuck their life up?

Wow...Could you fly off the handle any farther? Exaggerating (especially to that extent) to make a point only further detracts from your credibility.

What I said was, you weren't being objective...Not that you were incapable. Keep up, please.

It's hard to LOSE credibility when you don't start out with much.


What more is there to say about a person who makes up their own bullshit facts again and again in a debate about issues? I specifically quotes Athena's bullshit "facts" in my first post. Every one of those quotes is bullshit, and her entire argument was BASED on them. Making up facts is a sign of a person who is losing a debate.

Each of the following statements is pure bullshit.



Drunk drivers will not necessarily eventually kill someone. It's not even likely.

And, no, it's not playing "Russian roulette" with other lives.

The crack dealer who gives it out for free the first time to get people hooked is LARGELY urban myth.

When a person sells alcohol it to a minor, they aren't locked up, they're fined.

As is painfully apparent, our current drug laws AREN'T SAVING ANYONE.

My point on DUI legislation is that, at a certain point, it FAILS to PREVENT ANYTHING.


What more is there to say about a person who understates or exaggerates concrete data in a debate about issues? I specifically quoted Athena's understatements and exaggerations in my first post. Twisting data is a sign of a person who is losing a debate.

Each of the following statements is either an understatement or an exaggeration



Does drunk driving increase the odds? A bit...

"Chances are small" and "chances are amazingly minute" are vastly different degrees.

The national average for fatalities caused by drunk drivers is 24%. Less than 1/4th. Is it a problem? Yes. A "very high" average? Well, that's debatable.

Murder is a fundamental deprivation of another person's rights.


What more is there to say about a person who keeps bringing up shit that's off topic to the actual debate? Constantly trying to change the subject is a sign of a person who is losing a debate.

In short, Athena's "argument" is based on misinformation, distortions, straw man arguments, exaggerations, understatements, petty name calling, and pig headed declarations. What more is there to say to such nonsense, besides just calling it nonsense. To honestly debate such nonsense gives it far to much credit.

I thoroughly enjoyed Mr. Lieman's intelligent, honest, practical arguments in this enitely one sided debate. He gave Athena's nonsense far more consideration than I feel it deserved, and I admire his tenacity in the face of Athena's willful ignorance.

However, I did get a good laugh at the following line:

I feel no need to debate unrelated hypotheticals.
That's a good one!

[ZombieBabe]

Please note the bolded sentence.What more is there to say about a person who keeps making things personal in a debate about issues? Making personal digs, insulting childish comments, or showing utter contempt for the other side of a debate is the sign of someone who is losing a debate.

Athena's arguments in this thread have been so bad, I just had to register and respond.

PURE BULLSHIT



PIG HEADED



PERSONAL AND CONDESCENDING



UNDERSTATEMENTS AND EXAGGERATIONS



STRAW MAN ARGUMENTS



WHAT THE FUCK?



FUNNIEST LINE



Athena, your debating skills are pathetic.I do appreciate your rebuttal, since you explained it a little more, but sheesh, man! You did exactly what you chided Athena for.



I'm just sayin'. :neutral:

[swivel]

I think Richard Langston makes some excellent points. And if this thread were titled: "Athena's Posting Style Debate", some of those points would actually be germane to this thread.

But, since the thread is about DUI's and their punishment, these very long-winded (mostly quoted material, so superfluous) posts are nothing more than a personal attack on Athena, rather than any constructive addition to the arguments already made.

The "Thank You" button was integrated into these forums to avoid just this sort of nonsense. If you love the style of post that the Diabolical Lieman makes, give him some thanks. If you think Athena's posts are lacking in the aesthetics department, don't give her any thanks.

The best course would be to find flaws in Athena's argument, and offer up your own ideas. This would allow you to claw out of the ad hominem morass in which you have sunk. It reeks of a vendetta, to tell you the truth. If you guys did something nasty after too many drinks, please don't take it out on the rest of us in this thread. Start a new one!

Now, in order to hide my hypocrisy for slamming your silly posting style, (which was to slam another's posting style), I think that DUI's should be treated as armed assaults. If an innocent is hurt, treat the drunk driver as if the bullet met its' mark. If it is a victim-less DUI accident, treat them as you would an assailant who fired a few shots in anger, but didn't hit anyone. If it is just someone getting pulled over under the influence, treat them as an armed robber who had a loaded weapon, but didn't get a shot off.

Bear down on these assholes, big-time. One strike and you are out, no license ever again in your life. Let kids know this is the rule, and let the morons who ignore it be the examples to the rest of them. Drinking and driving is not like sitting in your home and getting stoned, you are taking other people's lives in your hands. An act that self-indulgent, thoughtless, and dangerous is not something for society to be lax about.

[Richard Langston]

Fine, in this case I'm a hypocrite. I was too harsh the first time. What I should have said in that first post was: Athena, you've used every distractive, nonsensical, petty, illogical, underhanded trick in the debating manual to argue an absurd position for page after page with someone who thoughtfully and intelligently showed your side of the subject for the nonsense it really is.

Was that OK?

As for the issue itself, Mr. Lieman said it all. Repeatedly, and with much patience. I agree with him on this matter. I just can't see the point in arguing with nonsense. I usually just point it out as nonsense and move on. I'll give a person's ideas plenty of consideration, provided their not just a series of straw man arguments designed to confuse discussion of the actual subject at hand. Athena played that hand over and over again in this debate. That's not worth it. I'll give a person's ideas plenty of consideration, provided they don't try to make things personal and condescending. Athena kept doing that over and over in this debate. I'll give a person's ideas plenty of consideration, provided that they don't make up facts and distort things to the point where nothing makes sense. Athena did that over and over again in this debate.

Taking an absurd stance on an issue and using every lame trick in the book to beat it to death doesn't make someone a good debater, IMHO. It makes them unworthy of serious response. I do, however, enjoy pointing their tricks out to them. If that makes me an asshole, so be it.

Is this place to "tight" for me? You tell me. There's plenty of other places to post. I'm game.

[Killroy]

Is this place to "tight" for me? You tell me. There's plenty of other places to post. I'm game.

No, you are more than welcome. I just don't want this "Three Things" forum to turn into a bunch of name-calling and pointing out debating flaws. I would rather people use facts to back up what they say, no matter what the stance. If someone chooses not to, then they will just be more easily cast aside.

As for you being an asshole, this forum is made up of them, so it would probably be best if you were.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

The "Thank You" button was integrated into these forums to avoid just this sort of nonsense. If you love the style of post that the Diabolical Lieman makes, give him

Hey, thank--well, what do you mean--

now, in order to hide my hypocrisy for slamming your silly posting style, (which was to slam another's posting style),


HEY!!!




:D :D :D

Yeah, I wasnt a fan of it either back in the day...its just easier for me. Im lazy.

[The Diabolical Mr. Lieman]

I thoroughly enjoyed Mr. Lieman's intelligent, honest, practical arguments in this enitely one sided debate. He gave Athena's nonsense far more consideration than I feel it deserved, and I admire his tenacity in the face of Athena's willful ignorance.



:D :D

Hmm...theres something more to this.....

Anyone who knows me knows that flattery is the way to my soul.....this....there seems to be something to this, and I cant figure out. Is this just a simple coicidence? Either way, you're good in my book. Even if Athena IS my homegirl. :o

[Athena]

What more is there to say about a person who keeps bringing up one straw man argument after another in a debate about issues? Straw man arguments are designed to confuse issues. They're designed to set the other person up for a fall. They're distractions, and they're the sign of someone who is losing a debate.

Each of the following statements is a straw man argument.

Oh...a wannabe professional. Love these guys.

Actually, darling, I was bringing up related points to illustrate quite clearly inconsistancy within the law. Still, no one has even bothered to touch my point about cell phones. Do you, Mr. Langston, care to make anything more than blanket generalisations about my argument? You accuse me of exaggeration and false stats, but if you're a debater of any sort, you know you've got to do more than accuse. I gave sources and specific data...Your turn.




What more is there to say about a person who keeps making things personal in a debate about issues? Making personal digs, insulting childish comments, or showing utter contempt for the other side of a debate is the sign of someone who is losing a debate.

The following statements are personal and condescending.

I won't hold it aganst you, as you wouldn't know, but The Diabolical Mr. Lieman and I are VERY good friends. Like, held this same discussion over the phone, friends. Perhaps you failed to notice, but shots were traded. I'm a bit more informal with personal friends. ;)



What more is there to say about a person who makes up their own bullshit facts again and again in a debate about issues? I specifically quotes Athena's bullshit "facts" in my first post. Every one of those quotes is bullshit, and her entire argument was BASED on them. Making up facts is a sign of a person who is losing a debate.

Each of the following statements is pure bullshit.

See, here's where you prove your lack of experience - Prove it. Prove any of it. Simply calling bullshit doesn't make it true, I'm afraid.


What more is there to say about a person who understates or exaggerates concrete data in a debate about issues? I specifically quoted Athena's understatements and exaggerations in my first post. Twisting data is a sign of a person who is losing a debate.

Each of the following statements is either an understatement or an exaggeration

See previous response.

What more is there to say about a person who keeps bringing up shit that's off topic to the actual debate? Constantly trying to change the subject is a sign of a person who is losing a debate.

In short, Athena's "argument" is based on misinformation, distortions, straw man arguments, exaggerations, understatements, petty name calling, and pig headed declarations. What more is there to say to such nonsense, besides just calling it nonsense. To honestly debate such nonsense gives it far to much credit.

Well, there's obviously much more to say about my argument than there is about your...Well, lack thereof. I'm sorry...Did you provide sources for anything? No...Just more personal opinion. I'm afraid that doesn't hold much water.

I thoroughly enjoyed Mr. Lieman's intelligent, honest, practical arguments in this enitely one sided debate. He gave Athena's nonsense far more consideration than I feel it deserved, and I admire his tenacity in the face of Athena's willful ignorance.


He's quite a guy, and certainly provided a perspective worth something. You seem to be unwilling to give it the old college try, yourself. Shame, too. You're obviously literate. That lack of reliable data can be pesky, though...

[Athena]

An act that self-indulgent, thoughtless, and dangerous is not something for society to be lax about.

Is anyone here arguing for consistancy?

Speeding is involved in more auto fatalities than is drunk driving. Cellphones are reported to be about equally as dangerous as drunk driving.

Call it a strawman, but I'd like to know: What justifies the lack of consistancy? Is ANYONE going to take the jump and argue that we should punish offenses that carry equal risk...Equally?

I know that you, swivel, have touched on the "intoxication as intent" argument, but intoxication is NOT intent. Vehicular manslaughter convictions lend themselves to that truth. I will never be convinced that a person with no intent to harm AND no victim should spend time in jail for their crime.

[Richard Langston]

See, here's where you prove your lack of experience - Prove it. Prove any of it. Simply calling bullshit doesn't make it true, I'm afraid.
The Diabolical Mr. Lieman already proved it. Repeatedly.

Do the math and you will see that drunk driving is a heavily exaggerated problem. And, no, it's not playing "Russian roulette" with other lives.
What would constitute proof to you? What figures should I bring that would help prove that drunk driving puts innocent peoples lives at risk? Is there a formula out there that makes the obvious even more obvious? What more would it take to convince you, when you've already inoculated yourself from reality on this particular issue?

The crack dealer who gives it out for free the first time to get people hooked is LARGELY urban myth.
What proof should I bring to show you that's a bullshit statement? Is there a chart somewhere that keeps track of crack dealers feebies? How could I possibly convince you that your statement was bullshit, when The Diabolical Mr. Lieman already gave you his own info and you ignored it? You didn't even want to admit that you said it at one point. You split hairs (another lame debating trick) and tried to draw a meaningless distinction between the words "it never happens" and the words "LARGELY an urban myth." With that in mind, what could I possibly bring to the table to convince you that crack dealers do indeed give out free product to people? Again, you've inoculated yourself into this tiny argument-proof bubble. Hello in there!

But when a person sells it to a minor, they aren't locked up, they're fined.
How does one prove the obvious to someone who doesn't want to see it? Again, the Diabolical Mr. Lieman already covered this well the first time. Store owners can lose their stores and go to jail selling booze to minors. Damn, I told myself I wasn't going to be tricked into actually responding to nonsense.

Don't want your little girl dating a meth dealer and getting hooked? Raise her right. It really is just that simple in the vast majority of cases.
The "vast majority of cases"? Where exactly are these vast family case studies on girls getting hooked on drugs? You throw around meaningless make-believe stats like punctuation. How am I going to prove a make-believe stat doesn't exist, when you're the one who invented it?

As is painfully apparent, our current drug laws AREN'T SAVING ANYONE.

My point on DUI legislation is that, at a certain point, it FAILS to PREVENT ANYTHING.
Again, the Diabolical Mr. Lieman already made it very clear how utterly and entirely wrong these statements are. "Aren't saving anyone?" Are you really gonna stick with that one? No one saved? None? Hell, you even CAPITALIZED IT. How could anyone possibly convince you that, although far from perfect, drug laws do indeed "save" people and "prevent" things?

Hairs can be split very fine, but at a certain point, at the sub-atomic level, at the murky level where John Carpenter's The Prince of Darkness resides, bullshit is just plain bullshit.

Wait, am I missing something? Is this some kind of a joke site? Those arguments weren't for real, right? :confused:

[swivel]

Is anyone here arguing for consistancy?


No. You're kidding, right? Consistency in law is impossible, especially since much of it is subjective, anyway. And you are making a big deal about this when it isn't anyone else's actual stance. STRAWMAN


Speeding is involved in more auto fatalities than is drunk driving. Cellphones are reported to be about equally as dangerous as drunk driving.


This is a really dumb argument to make. This is like saying that more people die from smoking cigarettes than from jumping out of airplanes without parachutes! Really stupid point, I must say. You have hundreds of millions of people driving billions of miles a day, and I would guess that over 90% of them are speeding for most of that time. Driving at least 5 MPH over the limit is the norm everywhere I have lived. Which means that your point doesn't prove which is more dangerous, only which takes place more often. Not many people jump out of airplanes naked, but I'm pretty sure that is more dangerous than smoking. (Argumentum ad absurdium, which isn't a fallacy, but a handy tool for pointing out the fallacies made by others)

Call it a strawman, but I'd like to know: What justifies the lack of consistancy? Is ANYONE going to take the jump and argue that we should punish offenses that carry equal risk...Equally?

I have just shown that the speeding argument is stupid due to a lack of understanding of the numbers involved, and how to scale them for proportion. Who is being inconsistent here?!

I know that you, swivel, have touched on the "intoxication as intent" argument, but intoxication is NOT intent. Vehicular manslaughter convictions lend themselves to that truth. I will never be convinced that a person with no intent to harm AND no victim should spend time in jail for their crime.

So, NOW the convictions of the pas