NationStates

Grave_n_idle wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:1. False dichotomy/strawman. If giving EVERY cop nearly unlimited freedom to execute people on allegations of drunk driving results in ONE innocent execution, that is too much abuse to tolerate. In reality, it would result in massive abuse -- something you and JuNi's semantic games don't really deny.

There already IS massive abuse.

So - 'you can't do it, there'd be massive abuse' is a cop-out.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:2. Cinncinnatus was NOT a saint.

And, if I'd said "You know like Cincinnatus? He was a saint" that would be a valid counter.

But I didn't. I just said he was an argument against the 'absaloot powah' malarkey.

1. Police routinely execute people now? And, to the extent this is true, it wouldn't get one bit worse if they had a free license to kill any alleged bad driver?

2. It is more than arguable that Cincinnatus abused power when he had it. That is what I meant and is a valid counter.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:1. False dichotomy/strawman. If giving EVERY cop nearly unlimited freedom to execute people on allegations of drunk driving results in ONE innocent execution, that is too much abuse to tolerate. In reality, it would result in massive abuse -- something you and JuNi's semantic games don't really deny.

hey! I play my own semantic game thank you very much.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Nice strawman.

I think everyone, including alleged drunk drivers, should be given a fair trial and due process prior to being punished.

I think convicted drunk drivers should be punished severely. In general, they already are,

I think that's bullshit.

An entire industry exists to make sure that people who chose to drive drunk get little or no punishment.

Even people who get busted for it get away with practically nothing.

The Cat-Tribe wrote: but I would see an argument for more severity being reasonable.

But the "if you have ever had a drink, you should never drive" mantra is bullshit

I have to assume you drive drunk, then - because I can't see any otehr reason why you'd be denying the fact that alcohol can impair ability at almost any measurable quantity.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:...and the "kill all the bad drivers" notion is plain evil.

I'm not interested in arguments about 'good' or 'evil'. I'm interested in getting drunk drivers off the road, permanently.

Grave_n_idle wrote:I'm not interested in arguments about 'good' or 'evil'. I'm interested in getting drunk drivers off the road, permanently.

Revocation of license should suffice for that.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:1. Police routinely execute people now? And, to the extent this is true, it wouldn't get one bit worse if they had a free license to kill any alleged bad driver?

It wasn't me that was arguing our police force is rddled with corruption. That was Sdaeriji. And the 'kill any bad drivers' thing is your strawman. I've been taklking about drunk drivers.

I certainly think it wouldn't hurt to crack down on bad drivers, though. I've argued before that driver's licenses should last only a year, and should have to be retested for each renewal.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:2. It is more than arguable that Cincinnatus abused power when he had it. That is what I meant and is a valid counter.

Yeah, what a bastard. He abused his absolutely corrupting power by... giving it up.

Milks Empire wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:I'm not interested in arguments about 'good' or 'evil'. I'm interested in getting drunk drivers off the road, permanently.

Revocation of license should suffice for that.

Really?

I wasn't aware that we'd finally cured the 'people driving without a valid license' problem.

You're right, this is going to be easier than I thought.

Grave_n_idle wrote:I'm not interested in arguments about 'good' or 'evil'. I'm interested in getting drunk drivers off the road, permanently.

if that's what all you're interested in... how about making those breathalyser key locks to start the car mandatory for all cars sold.

that way, if the BAC is near the intocixated level, then the car just plain won't start.

Perhaps our resident chemist can explain to us (1) the relationship between blood alcohol level and impairment, (2) the effect of time on blood alcohol level, and (3) the effect of other factors on blood alcohol level.

Unless he really wants to pretend the beer I had yesterday makes me unsafe to drive today.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Milks Empire wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:I'm not interested in arguments about 'good' or 'evil'. I'm interested in getting drunk drivers off the road, permanently.

Revocation of license should suffice for that.

Really?

I wasn't aware that we'd finally cured the 'people driving without a valid license' problem.

You're right, this is going to be easier than I thought.

My grandmother was killed in a drunk-driving crash. The drunk driver: my stepgrandfather. Not the first time the sonuvabitch had a negative impact on my family. No one deserves the death penalty because no one in the land of the living is even remotely qualified to administer it fairly.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:1. Police routinely execute people now? And, to the extent this is true, it wouldn't get one bit worse if they had a free license to kill any alleged bad driver?

It wasn't me that was arguing our police force is rddled with corruption. That was Sdaeriji. And the 'kill any bad drivers' thing is your strawman. I've been taklking about drunk drivers.

I certainly think it wouldn't hurt to crack down on bad drivers, though. I've argued before that driver's licenses should last only a year, and should have to be retested for each renewal.

Fine. Use your own terms. Will giving the police license to kill alleged drunk drivers result in more abuse of people by the police?

JuNii wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:I'm not interested in arguments about 'good' or 'evil'. I'm interested in getting drunk drivers off the road, permanently.

if that's what all you're interested in... how about making those breathalyser key locks to start the car mandatory for all cars sold.

that way, if the BAC is near the intocixated level, then the car just plain won't start.

That is a reasonable approach, if you can make it work. That means there has to be no way to circumvent the hardware, and you can't just cheat... like by getting your kid to blow in it for you.

There are other problems, of course - some other organics can trigger false positives on breathalysers (which is why I was talking about blood testing).

Grave_n_idle wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote: but I would see an argument for more severity being reasonable.

But the "if you have ever had a drink, you should never drive" mantra is bullshit

I have to assume you drive drunk, then - because I can't see any otehr reason why you'd be denying the fact that alcohol can impair ability at almost any measurable quantity.

Nice ad hominem.

For the record, I do not believe I have ever driven while intoxicated and I have never been arrested for, accused of, convicted of, etc. any offense involving driving and alcohol, let alone a DUI.

Have I ever had a dinner with a cocktail and driven home? Of course. I wasn't drunk.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:1. Police routinely execute people now? And, to the extent this is true, it wouldn't get one bit worse if they had a free license to kill any alleged bad driver?

It wasn't me that was arguing our police force is rddled with corruption. That was Sdaeriji. And the 'kill any bad drivers' thing is your strawman. I've been taklking about drunk drivers.

I certainly think it wouldn't hurt to crack down on bad drivers, though. I've argued before that driver's licenses should last only a year, and should have to be retested for each renewal.

Fine. Use your own terms. Will giving the police license to kill alleged drunk drivers result in more abuse of people by the police?

No, I have to assume that, rampant as abuse (allegedly) is, there would not be noticable more or less abuse.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote: but I would see an argument for more severity being reasonable.

But the "if you have ever had a drink, you should never drive" mantra is bullshit

I have to assume you drive drunk, then - because I can't see any otehr reason why you'd be denying the fact that alcohol can impair ability at almost any measurable quantity.

Nice ad hominem.

For the record, I do not believe I have ever driven while intoxicated and I have never been arrested for, accused of, convicted of, etc. any offense involving driving and alcohol, let alone a DUI.

Have I ever had a dinner with a cocktail and driven home? Of course. I wasn't drunk.

Apparently you have no value to society and need to be executed.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:For the record, I do not believe I have ever driven while intoxicated and I have never been arrested for, accused of, convicted of, etc. any offense involving driving and alcohol, let alone a DUI.

Have I ever had a dinner with a cocktail and driven home? Of course. I wasn't drunk.

You didn't feel drunk. That's not the same thing.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Fine. Use your own terms. Will giving the police license to kill alleged drunk drivers result in more abuse of people by the police?

No, I have to assume that, rampant as abuse (allegedly) is, there would not be noticable more or less abuse.

Fine. You are right. Roving death squads wouldn't result in any killings.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:For the record, I do not believe I have ever driven while intoxicated and I have never been arrested for, accused of, convicted of, etc. any offense involving driving and alcohol, let alone a DUI.

Have I ever had a dinner with a cocktail and driven home? Of course. I wasn't drunk.

You didn't feel drunk. That's not the same thing.

1. Define "drunk" for us, Mr. Science.

2. Do you drink alcohol or use other intoxicants? Do you drive a vehicle? If so, you have driven in some proximity to having imbided an intoxicant. Fucking hypocrite.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Fine. Use your own terms. Will giving the police license to kill alleged drunk drivers result in more abuse of people by the police?

No, I have to assume that, rampant as abuse (allegedly) is, there would not be noticable more or less abuse.

Fine. You are right. Roving death squads wouldn't result in any killings.

That's neither what I said, nor related to what you asked.

How eccentric.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Quibbling aside, do you deny that your proposed system of justice would have a far greater risk of abuse of power?

Yes. According to Sdaeriji, it's already ubiquitous.

That's not at all what I said, but that's okay. I know how much you love lying to support your trolling. I forgot for a moment why I had you on ignore. Your antics in this thread serve as a reminder.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Fine. Use your own terms. Will giving the police license to kill alleged drunk drivers result in more abuse of people by the police?

No, I have to assume that, rampant as abuse (allegedly) is, there would not be noticable more or less abuse.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:



Fine. You are right. Roving death squads wouldn't result in any killings.

That's neither what I said, nor related to what you asked.

How eccentric.

I was being as deliberately non-responsive as you are.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:1. Define "drunk" for us, Mr. Science.

Cute. 'Mr Science'. Like, because you're saying I'm not, really, by being sarcastic. That's adorable.

I would say 'drunk' is the point at which your alcohol content impairs your ability to process. In my state, the LEGAL level would be 80 milligrams per 100 mililitres of blood, I believe. But that is just the level at which you are legally drunk ENOUGH to be actionable.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:2. Do you drink alcohol or use other intoxicants?

I very occassionally drink.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Do you drive a vehicle?

Yes, but, when I drink, I only drink on Saturdays, and I don't drive till Monday.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:If so, you have driven in some proximity to having imbided an intoxicant. Fucking hypocrite.

I'm not a hypocrite, I walk it like I talk it.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:1. Define "drunk" for us, Mr. Science.

Cute. 'Mr Science'. Like, because you're saying I'm not, really, by being sarcastic. That's adorable.

I would say 'drunk' is the point at which your alcohol content impairs your ability to process. In my state, the LEGAL level would be 80 milligrams per 100 mililitres of blood, I believe. But that is just the level at which you are legally drunk ENOUGH to be actionable.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:2. Do you drink alcohol or use other intoxicants?

I very occassionally drink.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Do you drive a vehicle?

Yes, but, when I drink, I only drink on Saturdays, and I don't drive till Monday.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:If so, you have driven in some proximity to having imbided an intoxicant. Fucking hypocrite.

I'm not a hypocrite, I walk it like I talk it.

Thank you for acknowledging, contrary to your prior implications, that drinking any amount of alcohol followed in some manner of time by driving =/= "drunk driving."

What BAC would be sufficient grounds for execution, in your view?

Grave_n_idle wrote:
But you did mention AA.

And, absent any actual link to sources, that's going to make me suspect they're talking about alcohol.

So - if only 18% of alcoholics who ARE getting help from AA don't 're-offend'... that means 82% of that same demographic DO re-offend.

And that is the tip of the icebreg, isn't it?

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content?content=10.1080/10550490701756393

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholics_Anonymous#Effectiveness

Sources.

Also, not every alcoholic drives drunk, and not everyone who drives drunk is an alcoholic.

Grave_n_idle wrote:
Far too many of them do. Leniency doesn't work. 'You got lucky this time' doesn't work.

I don't see why it shouldn't.

Our society has different punishments for attempted homicide vs. actual homicide, which is what you seem to be equating a DUI to. Killing someone because what they might have done is completely unjustifiable.

Sdaeriji wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:

The Cat-Tribe wrote:Quibbling aside, do you deny that your proposed system of justice would have a far greater risk of abuse of power?

Yes. According to Sdaeriji, it's already ubiquitous.

That's not at all what I said, but that's okay. I know how much you love lying to support your trolling. I forgot for a moment why I had you on ignore. Your antics in this thread serve as a reminder.

Do you have me on ignore again yet? Or is it worth faking an offended response?

I find it funny that "proposed roving vigilante gangland assassination system" is a fair assessment of my argument, but "ubiquitous" is me 'lying' about your comments.

That's not 'funny' in a humourous way - that's 'funny' in a risible fashion.

The Cat-Tribe wrote:1. Define "drunk" for us, Mr. Science.

Intoxicated with alcoholic liquor to the point of impairment of physical and mental faculties (Dictionary.com)

The Cat-Tribe wrote:2. Do you drink alcohol or use other intoxicants?

not knowingly. last alcoholic beverage I had was in 2003. 1 glass of champaign during new years

The Cat-Tribe wrote: Do you drive a vehicle?

nope. last car I drove was in 2002. and I would always take a cab home after having at least one glass of alcohol.

and I know that if I had that one can of beer, I would be intoxicated.