The drink driving laws are a form of tyranny

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Classic logical fallacy. Argument based on imputed expertise rather than reasoning. Your expertise on the issue does not make your arguments necessarily any more valid than opposing arguments.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Nanny knows best, in other words.)

:rolleyes: There was no logical fallacy. The accusation leveled at anitram was that she was brainwashed and didnt know any better. It was a perfectly reasonable response.
 
Classic logical fallacy. Argument based on imputed expertise rather than reasoning. Your expertise on the issue does not make your arguments necessarily any more valid than opposing arguments.

No, but that wasn't the point I was making either.

He was saying that we're brainwashed, as if nobody here has given any logical or intelligent consideration to the matter at hand. Quite the opposite, I spent the better part of 2-3 years working on this stuff.
 
Classic logical fallacy. Argument based on imputed expertise rather than reasoning. Your expertise on the issue does not make your arguments necessarily any more valid than opposing arguments.

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Nanny knows best, in other words.)

"classic logical fallacy" or not, on one side you have a guy who worked on the stuff for a long time, on the other side you have a guy who can't figure out 90% of 545, I know whose expertise I'm siding with.....
 
One person I worked with (a very impressive man, I might add) always said that we don't need tougher drunk driving laws, we need smarter and more effective drunk driving laws. And it's very true. And it is also true that drunk driving laws have saved lives over the years.

The alcohol lobby is an incredible force, much like the tobacco lobby used to be. One example I can give you is the enormous struggle to get sobriety checkpoints going on weekend nights in bar areas. The lobby is so powerful that generally speaking, they will protect a perimeter of several kilometres in diameter around known drinking zones, because otherwise profits will go down. This is the sort of thing that you are dealing with behind the scenes, on a policy basis that people aren't even aware of.

Drunk driving laws should be targeted primarily at the 16-21 age group.
 
No, but that wasn't the point I was making either.

He was saying that we're brainwashed, as if nobody here has given any logical or intelligent consideration to the matter at hand. Quite the opposite, I spent the better part of 2-3 years working on this stuff.

And I've got a lawyer buddy who would argue quite the opposite of you, maybe it's matter of opinion.

"classic logical fallacy" or not, on one side you have a guy who worked on the stuff for a long time, on the other side you have a guy who can't figure out 90% of 545, I know whose expertise I'm siding with.....

I guessed before I checked numbers, douchebag. Maybe you missed that.


I definitely made sure I was over the limit tonight before heading home. The only thing that didn't make it was one of my chicken tenders.
 
Hopefully if any of your relatives are killed the other driver is sober. Have a nice night.
this is totally out of line, period.

I guessed before I checked numbers, douchebag. Maybe you missed that.

I definitely made sure I was over the limit tonight before heading home. The only thing that didn't make it was one of my chicken tenders.
so is name calling. and was this second paragraph really necessary?

:yawn:

any idea how much of a fucking idiot you sound like?
name calling is not allowed.
 
hyperU2? dont throw stones, junior. and its pretty awesome that you get drunk and post on the internets too!
 
How many fucking times do I have to say it? Again, I know that I go largely ignored in this part of the site, whatever, but you're all exhibiting idiotic behavior by continually falling for this guy's nonsense.

Ignore him; cos he very much wants you to go after him.
 
As you well know, I am not an NRA supporter. But the NRA isn't above criticism and many criticisms have been levelled at it.


I am a member of the NRA and I vote Libertarian.


From the first post:

To underscore the fact that it is some level of drinking that is being criminalized, government sets up these outrageous, civil-liberties-violating barricades that stop people to check their blood – even when they have done nothing at all. This is a gross attack on liberty that implies that the government has and should have total control over us, extending even to the testing of intimate biological facts. But somehow we put up with it because we have conceded the first assumption that government ought to punish us for the content of our blood and not just our actions.
Quote:
We need to put a stop to this whole trend now. Drunk driving should be legalized. And please don't write me to say: "I am offended by your insensitivity because my mother was killed by a drunk driver." Any person responsible for killing someone else is guilty of manslaughter or murder and should be punished accordingly. But it is perverse to punish a murderer not because of his crime but because of some biological consideration, e.g. he has red hair.

Bank robbers may tend to wear masks, but the crime they commit has nothing to do with the mask. In the same way, drunk drivers cause accidents but so do sober drivers, and many drunk drivers cause no accidents at all. The law should focus on violations of person and property, not scientific oddities like blood content.



As a Libertarian, I think I agree in part to what is being stated here.

Drivers convicted of driving drunk and causing accidents should face severe punishment and fines, but excessive tactics to convict do infringe on a person's right against unlawful search.

The blood alcohol limit is now so low that some can be convicted of driving drunk after only two or three beers.

I do not drink and drive, but I am wary of intrusive police tactics that stop people for no reason and then require a blood test.

We should do all we can to teach responsibility and the dangers of not staying focused while driving a car.

The school systems, I think, should do more of this.



"A government big enough to give your everything thing you want is a government big enough to take everything away."

~Barry Goldwater
 
The blood alcohol limit is now so low that some can be convicted of driving drunk after only two or three beers.

Some people can be impaired after only 2 or 3 beers.

I'm a heavyweight and can drink a lot before I feel "drunk", but if I haven't had much to eat and down 3 beers in quick succession I guarantee that 0.08 or not, I'll be impaired for at least a short while.

There are so many factors to alcohol impairment, that makes the "only 2 or 3 beers" statement totally ridiculous.
 
How about walking around with a gun while drunk? We cool with that?

Also, driving is not a right. You cannot demand a driver's license. It's an "earned" privilege - you have to prove you can drive and obey the rules of the road. Drunk driving laws are in that way no different than red lights and stop sign laws.
 
Back
Top Bottom