A Pound of Flesh? Two? All of it? (Drunk/drink Drivers)

[JuNii]

Emotion is a weakness, and science is the most important thing in existence. Those who would pursue truth should sacrifice all emotions on the alter of logic and reason.

So... are you saying I'm too emotional... or not emotional enough?

Because that sure looked like a parody response...

You are too emotional. I strive to suppress all of my emotions.

so you are in agreement that Drunk Drivers need to be removed because of the threat they pose to themselves and others.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

so you are in agreement that Drunk Drivers need to be removed because of the threat they pose to themselves and others.

Not necessarily. If you're going to make this argument, you have to factor in all the hidden costs. The number of hidden costs for the police being given the right to execute a certain group of people without a trial is quite a lot higher than some of you seem to acknowledge.

[JuNii]

so you are in agreement that Drunk Drivers need to be removed because of the threat they pose to themselves and others.

Not necessarily. If you're going to make this argument, you have to factor in all the hidden costs. The number of hidden costs for the police being given the right to execute a certain group of people without a trial is quite a lot higher than some of you seem to acknowledge.

nope. because if one is being totally emotionless... the simple readings to verify the level of the drivers BAC would be all that is needed.

placing "worth" is an emotional response to try to detere a true emotionless result. by putting worth to a person, you now are putting a value other than a resource or monitary nature.

even keeping it strictly monetary or resource wise... you have the proof (BAC and the fact he would be driving) and the cost. 1 bullet.

however, in a view that is truely emotionless. his vacancy opens up a job opportunity for an unemployed person. the shifting around would necessitate a realocation of resources that would result in a savings of spendature.

his family would probably benefit from any insurance claim since it won't be considered 'suicide'. a special service would be created (roadside remain pickup and tow) which would create jobs as well as services that can be expanded into everyday life.

thus the worth gained by one drunk driver's removal is far greater than any cost given. added to that with proper legislation and use of both computers and videos, Frivolous lawsuits and their cost wouldn't be incurred because of the proof of their guilt.

further legistature can include the vehicle the drunk driver was driving. it can be impounded and then sold at cost to help fund services (social and otherwise) and thus adding to the benefits the drunk driver's removal would create.

that is, if you truely want to look at it in a totally emotional free viewpoint.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

however, in a view that is truely emotionless. his vacancy opens up a job opportunity for an unemployed person. the shifting around would necessitate a realocation of resources that would result in a savings of spendature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of ... ken_window

[JuNii]

however, in a view that is truely emotionless. his vacancy opens up a job opportunity for an unemployed person. the shifting around would necessitate a realocation of resources that would result in a savings of spendature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of ... ken_window

So. what's the cost?

and the alternative?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Not necessarily. If you're going to make this argument, you have to factor in all the hidden costs. The number of hidden costs for the police being given the right to execute a certain group of people without a trial is quite a lot higher than some of you seem to acknowledge.

nope. because if one is being totally emotionless... the simple readings to verify the level of the drivers BAC would be all that is needed.

placing "worth" is an emotional response to try to detere a true emotionless result. by putting worth to a person, you now are putting a value other than a resource or monitary nature.

even keeping it strictly monetary or resource wise... you have the proof (BAC and the fact he would be driving) and the cost. 1 bullet.

Where did I mention worth? I said hidden costs. You don't think that there are hidden costs involved with giving the police the power to execute certain groups of people without any trial? You are being the illogical one by ignoring every single cost except that of the bullet. You're just like the people who call socialized medicine "free health care." It isn't free, there are costs, it's just that the costs are paid by taxes rather than by customers.

[JuNii]

Where did I mention worth? I said hidden costs. You don't think that there are hidden costs involved with giving the police the power to execute certain groups of people without any trial? You are being the illogical one by ignoring every single cost except that of the bullet. You're just like the people who call socialized medicine "free health care." It isn't free, there are costs, it's just that the costs are paid by taxes rather than by customers.

what costs?

in order to "excecute" a drunk driver. proof of level of intoxication would be needed. using the current legal level would not incur any cost.

proof of who was driving is also needed. but with todays's popularity of dashboard cams, such cost is minimal.

list other hidden costs please?

[JuNii]

Where did I mention worth?

You are using value in the sense of the value of a quantity. The earlier invocation of value was as a measure of worth. The best way to measure worth is economics, because it is the only objective study of it. Perhaps we should use the word worth to avoid this confusion then?

[Grave_n_idle]

Or, how about:

Every drunk-driver that is arrested and rehabilitated through AA or a similar program

No one has yet shown it's even possible to 'rehabilitate' drunk drivers.

Much less, that there's any tendency for anyone to do it.

...is someone's loved one who's brains are not splattered all over the pavement,

Ah, an appeal to emotion.

...and instead are continuing to contribute to society,

Or not. 999/1000 people are totally interchangable.

...despite one major mistake

Drunk driving is not a 'mistake'.

...or lapse in judgement that, though it had the potential to end in tragedy, did not.

Or did. You don't know how many accidents might have been caused already, in that one drive, alone.

Second chances are far more effective than end-all solutions.

Surely, if 'effective' is our measure, there's NOTHING more 'effective' than death.

[Grave_n_idle]

The police are impartial, in the example, because I said there should be a second car to 'witness' the first, and because our polic should ideally be recording all of their actions. One cop on his own might be partial, but the cold eye of the camera, and the correlative evidence of a second testimony, should allay that.

A lack of emotion is a weakness because we are clearly evolved to feel. Without emotions, without feelings, without love, without hate - breath is just a clock, ticking.

On the other hand - emotion has no place in an objective assessment. You keep invoking senitmentalism in your assessment (the value of a person), and yet you have the temerity to suggest it is my view that is clouded.

You were the first to invoke value,

I'm pretty sure I wasn't. Go look back through the thread.

[Grave_n_idle]

Nonsense. We have mass. We have intrinsic temperature and endothermic or exothermic value. We have chemical 'value'. We have volumetric 'value'. We have input versus output 'value'.

All of those metrics are far more readily assessed than some arbitrary 'economic' measure.

You are using value in the sense of the value of a quantity. The earlier invocation of value was as a measure of worth. The best way to measure worth is economics, because it is the only objective study of it. Perhaps we should use the word worth to avoid this confusion then?

Your argument is nonsensical. You keep saying 'the best way to measure worth is economics', but - apart from fitting the argument you WNAT us to be having - you've yet to actually give a reason why 'economic value' is any more significant than your weight in raw materials.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Where did I mention worth? I said hidden costs. You don't think that there are hidden costs involved with giving the police the power to execute certain groups of people without any trial? You are being the illogical one by ignoring every single cost except that of the bullet. You're just like the people who call socialized medicine "free health care." It isn't free, there are costs, it's just that the costs are paid by taxes rather than by customers.

what costs?

in order to "excecute" a drunk driver. proof of level of intoxication would be needed. using the current legal level would not incur any cost.

proof of who was driving is also needed. but with todays's popularity of dashboard cams, such cost is minimal.

list other hidden costs please?

One hidden cost is the loss of a productive member of society. Most of these drunk drivers have jobs, and so you've just decreased the number of workers in an economy.

The power given to the police officers will, almost of necessity, be abused. Police officers already abuse power, do you think the addition of the power to execute certain criminals without any trial isn't going to be abused? Do you think that every case of drunk drivers being executed will really be legitimate? How hard is it to forge such evidence, especially if it's not even taken to trial? Police officers already aren't held accountable for much, do you really think that there will be no problems created by lessening this accountability? You really aren't putting a whole lot of thought into this are you?

[Grave_n_idle]

so you are in agreement that Drunk Drivers need to be removed because of the threat they pose to themselves and others.

Not necessarily. If you're going to make this argument, you have to factor in all the hidden costs.

No you don't.

We don't look at the cases of rape or murder on our law books and say "Well shit, THAT's gonna cost a bomb... might as well legalise it".

[Grave_n_idle]

Not necessarily. If you're going to make this argument, you have to factor in all the hidden costs. The number of hidden costs for the police being given the right to execute a certain group of people without a trial is quite a lot higher than some of you seem to acknowledge.

nope. because if one is being totally emotionless... the simple readings to verify the level of the drivers BAC would be all that is needed.

placing "worth" is an emotional response to try to detere a true emotionless result. by putting worth to a person, you now are putting a value other than a resource or monitary nature.

even keeping it strictly monetary or resource wise... you have the proof (BAC and the fact he would be driving) and the cost. 1 bullet.

Where did I mention worth? I said hidden costs. You don't think that there are hidden costs involved with giving the police the power to execute certain groups of people without any trial? You are being the illogical one by ignoring every single cost except that of the bullet. You're just like the people who call socialized medicine "free health care." It isn't free, there are costs, it's just that the costs are paid by taxes rather than by customers.

That's funny. When someone ENGAGES your 'value/worth' argument, you pretend you weren't making it...

[Grave_n_idle]

One hidden cost is the loss of a productive member of society. Most of these drunk drivers have jobs, and so you've just decreased the number of workers in an economy.

In a recession with 10% unemployment? Puh-lease.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Nonsense. We have mass. We have intrinsic temperature and endothermic or exothermic value. We have chemical 'value'. We have volumetric 'value'. We have input versus output 'value'.

All of those metrics are far more readily assessed than some arbitrary 'economic' measure.

You are using value in the sense of the value of a quantity. The earlier invocation of value was as a measure of worth. The best way to measure worth is economics, because it is the only objective study of it. Perhaps we should use the word worth to avoid this confusion then?

Your argument is nonsensical. You keep saying 'the best way to measure worth is economics', but - apart from fitting the argument you WNAT us to be having - you've yet to actually give a reason why 'economic value' is any more significant than your weight in raw materials.

There's more to cost than the weight of your materials. A gold watch is worth more than the value of its raw materials, because it is at a state of lower entropy than the raw materials in unused form and hence takes the expenditure of energy to create. Ultimately, gold and oxygen are made of exactly the same thing, but gold is more expensive because it is more rare. Why is it more rare, because the physical structure of its atoms is more energetically difficult to produce than oxygen's. The chemical elements making up the human body are at a much higher state of entropy when they exist as simple compounds in nature than when they comprise a human body. This is precisely why human bodies don't spontaneously generate and hence take large quantities of energy to produce. Why do I have to explain this to a chemist?

[JuNii]

One hidden cost is the loss of a productive member of society. Most of these drunk drivers have jobs, and so you've just decreased the number of workers in an economy.

and if you read my point. the lost of one productive member opens up the opportunity for an unproductive member to find their worth. considering that even if the DDD (Dead Drunk Driver) was a president of a company, the vice president would step up. and due to the shifts that would occure, opportunities of advancement would be available, and that open slot would trickle down where an unproductive member of society (Unemployed) would become a productive member (Employed) so again, how is that a cost?

the savings of the DDD's lost of pay would be transfered to the training of the new person. so again, no lost in economics there.

The power given to the police officers will, almost of necessity, be abused.

this is a value or emotional baised argument. unless you can prove that the number of police officers who abuse their power outnumber the number of police officers who don't.

Police officers already abuse power,

value or emotional baised argument. please show that the number of officers guilty of power abuse makes up the majority of officers on active duty.

do you think the addition of the power to execute certain criminals without any trial isn't going to be abused?

with poper legislation, no. now you are trying to envoke an emotional response... a contradiction from one who claims to be removing all emotional responses.

Do you think that every case of drunk drivers being executed will really be legitimate? How hard is it to forge such evidence, especially if it's not even taken to trial? Police officers already aren't held accountable for much, do you really think that there will be no problems created by lessening this accountability? You really aren't putting a whole lot of thought into this are you?

all these are emotionally baised arguments. yet today, there are procedures to deal with those few officers who decide to abuse power. those procedures would be adequet with the legislature put in place to deal with the event of executing drunk drivers. some of which I already expressed which is in addition and not replacement.

for one desiring to be without emotion, you are making too many emotional arguments without facts to back up your claim.

[The Cat-Tribe]

The punishment for drunk-driving should be instant execution at the roadside.

I love it when you are silly.

It gets the bees all a buzzing.

[The Cat-Tribe]

One hidden cost is the loss of a productive member of society. Most of these drunk drivers have jobs, and so you've just decreased the number of workers in an economy.

and if you read my point. the lost of one productive member opens up the opportunity for an unproductive member to find their worth. considering that even if the DDD (Dead Drunk Driver) was a president of a company, the vice president would step up. and due to the shifts that would occure, opportunities of advancement would be available, and that open slot would trickle down where an unproductive member of society (Unemployed) would become a productive member (Employed) so again, how is that a cost?

the savings of the DDD's lost of pay would be transfered to the training of the new person. so again, no lost in economics there.

The power given to the police officers will, almost of necessity, be abused.

this is a value or emotional baised argument. unless you can prove that the number of police officers who abuse their power outnumber the number of police officers who don't.

Police officers already abuse power,

value or emotional baised argument. please show that the number of officers guilty of power abuse makes up the majority of officers on active duty.

do you think the addition of the power to execute certain criminals without any trial isn't going to be abused?

with poper legislation, no. now you are trying to envoke an emotional response... a contradiction from one who claims to be removing all emotional responses.

Do you think that every case of drunk drivers being executed will really be legitimate? How hard is it to forge such evidence, especially if it's not even taken to trial? Police officers already aren't held accountable for much, do you really think that there will be no problems created by lessening this accountability? You really aren't putting a whole lot of thought into this are you?

all these are emotionally baised arguments. yet today, there are procedures to deal with those few officers who decide to abuse power. those procedures would be adequet with the legislature put in place to deal with the event of executing drunk drivers. some of which I already expressed which is in addition and not replacement.

for one desiring to be without emotion, you are making too many emotional arguments without facts to back up your claim.

Not defending UT, here, but are you really going to contend that roadside executions create no risk of abuse or error? There is nothing purely emotional about that part of UT's argument.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

and if you read my point. the lost of one productive member opens up the opportunity for an unproductive member to find their worth. considering that even if the DDD (Dead Drunk Driver) was a president of a company, the vice president would step up. and due to the shifts that would occure, opportunities of advancement would be available, and that open slot would trickle down where an unproductive member of society (Unemployed) would become a productive member (Employed) so again, how is that a cost?

the savings of the DDD's lost of pay would be transfered to the training of the new person. so again, no lost in economics there.

I already told you that this is an example of the broken window fallacy, but you ignored that.

[The Cat-Tribe]

1. I'm curious as to when roadside sobriety tests became the equivalent of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

2. You people do realize you can refuse a breathalyzer test. Do we execute everyone that refuses?

[EvilDarkMagicians]

The punishment for drunk-driving should be instant execution at the roadside.

I love it when you are silly.

It gets the bees all a buzzing.

I don't think he (I think grave_n_idle is a he) is being silly. Unfortunately.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

One hidden cost is the loss of a productive member of society. Most of these drunk drivers have jobs, and so you've just decreased the number of workers in an economy.

and if you read my point. the lost of one productive member opens up the opportunity for an unproductive member to find their worth. considering that even if the DDD (Dead Drunk Driver) was a president of a company, the vice president would step up. and due to the shifts that would occure, opportunities of advancement would be available, and that open slot would trickle down where an unproductive member of society (Unemployed) would become a productive member (Employed) so again, how is that a cost?

the savings of the DDD's lost of pay would be transfered to the training of the new person. so again, no lost in economics there.

The power given to the police officers will, almost of necessity, be abused.

this is a value or emotional baised argument. unless you can prove that the number of police officers who abuse their power outnumber the number of police officers who don't.

Police officers already abuse power,

value or emotional baised argument. please show that the number of officers guilty of power abuse makes up the majority of officers on active duty.

do you think the addition of the power to execute certain criminals without any trial isn't going to be abused?

with poper legislation, no. now you are trying to envoke an emotional response... a contradiction from one who claims to be removing all emotional responses.

Do you think that every case of drunk drivers being executed will really be legitimate? How hard is it to forge such evidence, especially if it's not even taken to trial? Police officers already aren't held accountable for much, do you really think that there will be no problems created by lessening this accountability? You really aren't putting a whole lot of thought into this are you?

all these are emotionally baised arguments. yet today, there are procedures to deal with those few officers who decide to abuse power. those procedures would be adequet with the legislature put in place to deal with the event of executing drunk drivers. some of which I already expressed which is in addition and not replacement.

for one desiring to be without emotion, you are making too many emotional arguments without facts to back up your claim.

Show me where I said that all or even a majority of officers abuse power. I said it happens, and I'm pretty sure that you know it happens. I pointed out that when an officer abuses power (like shooting an innocent black man because he thought that he had a gun), he is less likely to face punishment than other people. There exists abuse in the system, and this idea would only further the potential for such abuse. This is not an emotional argument.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

That's funny. When someone ENGAGES your 'value/worth' argument, you pretend you weren't making it...

I wasn't debating him about worth. I was debating him about hidden costs. I was debating you about worth. You were the one that brought up worth to me. You know, it's almost as if I can debate more than one notion with more than one person. Nah, that couldn't be possible.

[The Cat-Tribe]

The punishment for drunk-driving should be instant execution at the roadside.

I love it when you are silly.

It gets the bees all a buzzing.

I don't think he (I think grave_n_idle is a he) is being silly. Unfortunately.

He may or may not be 100% serious. He is being undeniably silly.